[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: NM Report for Week Ending 23 Mar 2008

On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 3:49 AM, Christoph Berg <myon@debian.org> wrote:
> Re: Paul Wise 2008-03-31 <e13a36b30803310018g278a3c4fja2c327b444123dba@mail.gmail.com>
> > I note that several NMs are both on hold and have an inactive NM. I
>  > think the NM report should differentiate such NMs from those that are
>  > just on hold or just have an inactive NM. Not sure what the
>  > appropriate action is for those who are both on hold and have an
>  > inactive NM, but I've attached a patch for the NM report script. I
>  > haven't tested it, but it looks OK to me.
>  In an ideal world there shouldn't be any NMs with inactive AMs. At the
>  moment we use this as a parking area for NMs that did not express to
>  want to continue at the moment we set the AM inactive, but we should
>  probably rather soft-reject those, or have some kind of "inactive"
>  queue. (Rather the former, the latter would probably become some very
>  dusty attic.)
>  Let's see how the cleanup you triggered yields, and if the patch is
>  still necessary then.

I didn't mail any of the NMs/AMs in the situation where the NM is on
hold and has an inactive AM. Should I do so now? There were four or
five names in that situation IIRC.

BTW, no need to CC, I'm subscribed.



Reply to: