<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 01/24/2014 05:05 AM, Rahul Sundaram
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAHc5q3coUZfooXMUYyJ5WQXRcOdD1184BvvCNm8dzpASJV1M0A@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><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. <br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
It's not pretending anything if you question what I suggest you get
input from the arm team they are the once that most recently went
through all the packages right. <br>
<br>
Let's hear from them how well much time they spent fixing
unmaintained or badly maintained packages for nothing.<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAHc5q3coUZfooXMUYyJ5WQXRcOdD1184BvvCNm8dzpASJV1M0A@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div> 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.</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
What you are proposing is what has been tried to be achieved for the
past ten years and utterly failed hence we need a different
approach.<br>
<br>
I say we remove those unmaintained components and if and when
interest comes back to maintain those components then they will just
have to pass through package review again.<br>
<br>
JBG<br>
</body>
</html>