Re: Limiting concurrent claims?
On Fri, Mar 13, 2020 at 01:08:28PM +0000, Holger Levsen wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 11, 2020 at 05:59:24PM +0100, Sylvain Beucler wrote:
> > I regularly see a package claimed while the packager already claimed
> > others, and then semi-automatically unclaimed after two weeks. Moreover,
> > the package is then claimed by another packager, which means the initial
> > work (if any) was useless, and the security update was basically delayed
> > for no reason (while it's time-sensitive).
>
> I've seen this too though I have concluded (most?) often the situation
> is unclear / involving slowly / etc, and thus the package has been claimed
> for long. At least this is my impression from the cases where I asked
> or looked deeper myself.
>
> > Since I see this regularly, I wonder if we should enforce a harder rule
> > (e.g. 2 at most), or find some other way to curb that trend.
>
> I'd set that number to 3 or 4 and also (at first?) only make it a warning
> in my weekly semi-automatic mails.
>
> > Thoughts?
>
> thanks for bringing this up! I'm curious what others think too.
>
I would be in favor of that. At times I've been frustrated by seeing
five or six claims from a single individual.
Regards,
-Roberto
--
Roberto C. Sánchez
Reply to: