On 08/02/2010 01:41 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Mon, 02 Aug 2010 12:31:22 +0100, James wrote:
> Remember that some packages get very little activity because they need
> very little.
And these are not a problem at all.
> Increasing someone's AWOLness counter because they didn't for example,
> update ed is just plain silly.
[snipped the rest here]
Uh, come on, ... that's not helpful. There are ideas how to detect absent
maintainers early by collecting and *combining* information available in
the Fedora intrastructure. Not by having a single old stable pkg trigger
an AWOL alarm.
[snip]
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.
He is surprised to learn that he's been declared AWOL and had his
packages removed when he returns from holiday.
As I read the initial proposal, this is entirely plausible.