On Fri, 2014-01-24 at 01:00 +0100, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 04:53:47PM -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Jan 2014 15:26:24 -0800
> Adam Williamson <awilliam(a)redhat.com> wrote:
> I think ideally any process around this should have at least two parts:
>
> a) an automated/scriptable part.
>
> In this part the script uses cold hard facts to look for possible
> packages that are unloved or package maintainers that are not active.
> There's tons of data we have now with fedmsg. Sadly, we don't have
> bugzilla in fedmsg, but we could scrape it directly.
> it generates a list that feeds to the next part.
>
> b) The generated list is examined by humans and action taken.
>
> Some things that are the list will be false positives. Try and adjust
> the script to not generate them.
>
> As a bonus, the script could also possibly try and figure out components
> that 'need help'...ie, lots of unanswered bugs or something.
Even a simple list of packages ordered by the time from last
non-mass-rebuild release multiplied by the number of currently open
bugs would be quite useful. Packages with bug-years above 50 or so
would be good candidates for inspection.
Hey, I love that idea. Great metric.
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net
http://www.happyassassin.net