On Tue, 03 Aug 2010 11:27:00 +0100
James Findley <sixy(a)gmx.com> wrote:
Really? So imagine this scenario.
Packager foo has two packages, bar and baz.
bar is a package much like ed, which needs very little attention, and
goes for a year without anything needing doing to it, no koji
activity happens. This increases the hidden little "AWOLness"
counter.
foo then goes on holiday for a week, and forgets to mention this on
his fp.o page.
A bug is found in package baz. Bug reports are filed - users are
impatient. It's noticed that foo has a very high AWOLness counter
due to foo's other package.
- Maintainer is nominated as AWOL.
- FESCo (or whatever humans are supposed to) look at this and decide
that he's not really awol, he's just away from his computer.
He is surprised to learn that he's been declared AWOL and had his
packages removed when he returns from holiday.
I think much more likely would be that if the bug/issue was security or
critical, a provenpackager would step in and fix it. If he wasn't back
in a few more weeks the packages would be orphaned and passed on to a
new maintainer.
As I read the initial proposal, this is entirely plausible.
I don't think so. Any process needs to have a human check at the end.
We shouldn't automate it fully as there will be false positives.
Humans should look at the case and catch stuff like the above.
kevin