Re: Self-assessment of the quality of the maintenance work
On Sat, 20 Dec 2008, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Raphael Hertzog <hertzog@debian.org> writes:
>
> > The basic idea is quite simple, we want to ensure that each package is
> > maintained as well as possible and for this we need to ensure that
> > it has one or more active maintainer(s). Hence every X months, each
> > maintainer receives a mail with a link to a web form where he'll have a
> > list of all the packages that he maintains/co-maintains and for each
> > package he has to answer several questions that explain his relationship
> > with the package (the answer are preseeded with the values he selected
> > the previous time so that he can quickly skim over it if nothing has
> > changed):
>
> That's going to be a lot of fairly mindless paperwork for someone who's
> the member of a large, active team with a lot of packages. For example, I
> feel for Gregor Herrmann (253 packages) or Gunnar Wolf (187 packages)
> having to fill this out for every package they uploaded for pkg-perl.
Agreed. I'm not sure what's the best way to handle this.
Maybe the form should make it easy to give the same answers to all
packages that are maintained by a given team ? We could use easily
identify the team by finding out an email that matches .*@lists\. in
either the Maintainer: field or the Uploaders: field.
Another answer might be to hide all packages which are fine under the
current norms (to be defined: no bugs (or less than X bugs), no lintian
errors, …) and use some predefined answers in those cases. The form would
focus on packages with problems (or that are getting worse over time).
Do you see any other approach ?
Cheers,
--
Raphaël Hertzog
Le best-seller français mis à jour pour Debian Etch :
http://www.ouaza.com/livre/admin-debian/
Reply to: