<div dir="ltr">Hi<br><div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 7:08 PM, Adam Williamson <span dir="ltr"></span>wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div class="im">On Fri, 2014-01-24 at 01:00 +0100, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:<br>
<br>
> Even a simple list of packages ordered by the time from last<br>
> non-mass-rebuild release multiplied by the number of currently open<br>
> bugs would be quite useful. Packages with bug-years above 50 or so<br>
> would be good candidates for inspection.<br>
<br>
</div>Hey, I love that idea. Great metric.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Agreed. It is atleast a metric that can be tweaked as opposed to pretending that all packages with inactive upstreams is a deep resource drain on Fedora. I would suggest that when we identify such packages, we take steps to try and get more maintainers for those packages first before trying to cull them off. For instance, sending a note to fedora announce list and here with the list of problematic packages. That way, everyone will have a fair chance to try and rescue the packages they care about.<br>
<br></div><div>Rahul<br></div></div></div></div></div>