I agree. I'd rather give people permission to co-maintain package, then
push them out of community. I'm afraid we can only loose maintainers by
measurements of activity.
Marcela
On 11/06/2012 12:10 PM, Aleksandar Kurtakov wrote:
It's the whole thread that implies that not your mail only.
No one managed to explain why there should be actions against people instead of packages.
I would be really thankful if someone explains how he can getter better measurement of
people activity than of package maintenance problems and what is the benefit of tracking
persons activity - it's not a competition it's supposed to be a collaboration and
every should do as much as he can and wants.
Alexander Kurtakov
Red Hat Eclipse team
----- Original Message -----
> From: "Vít Ondruch" <vondruch(a)redhat.com>
> To: devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
> Sent: Tuesday, November 6, 2012 12:55:27 PM
> Subject: Re: Revamping the non responsive maintainer process
>
> I don't know what are you reading in my response, but I definitely
> did
> not propose anything like "noone wants people that are ready to do
> one
> thing in a year".
>
> Vit
>
>
>
> Dne 6.11.2012 09:52, Aleksandar Kurtakov napsal(a):
>> Where is the community spirit? What went wrong with fedora
>> community? Why on earth do you people insist on tracking people
>> activity and not try detecting unmaintained packages?
>> Detecting unmaintained packages is even easier and has clearer
>> metrics.
>>
>> Really, why noone wants people that are ready to do one thing in a
>> year? Are many people here feeling superior than the rest of the
>> world and think there is no need for further contributions and
>> they can do everything alone ? I'm starting to be really worried
>> for the path Fedora is going.
>>
>> Alexander Kurtakov
>> Red Hat Eclipse team
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "Vít Ondruch" <vondruch(a)redhat.com>
>>> To: devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>>> Sent: Tuesday, November 6, 2012 10:28:11 AM
>>> Subject: Re: Revamping the non responsive maintainer process
>>>
>>> Dne 5.11.2012 10:22, Marcela Mašláňová napsal(a):
>>>> On 11/02/2012 06:57 PM, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
>>>>> On 11/02/2012 04:56 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, 02 Nov 2012 16:44:06 +0000
>>>>>> "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" <johannbg(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 11/02/2012 04:25 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>>>>>>> =?UTF-8?B?IkrDs2hhbm4gQi4gR3XDsG11bmRzc29uIg==?=
>>>>>>>> <johannbg(a)gmail.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>> On 11/02/2012 03:32 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Nov 02, 2012 at 03:12:56PM +0000,
"Jóhann B.
>>>>>>>>>> Guðmundsson" wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Dead/un-maintained packages need to be
removed/reassigned
>>>>>>>>>>> at
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> very *beginning* of an new development cycle
so feature
>>>>>>>>>>> owners
>>>>>>>>>>> and others working in the community are
dealing with
>>>>>>>>>>> active
>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>> actively maintained packages.
>>>>>>>> How exactly are you going to force maintainers who go
missing
>>>>>>>> to do
>>>>>>>> so at a prescheduled time? Real life is seldom that
>>>>>>>> convenient.
>>>>>>> If at this point we dont have any process that can actively
>>>>>>> tell
>>>>>>> if a
>>>>>>> maintainer is present and active within the project then we
>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>> bigger fish to fry then the feature process...
>>>>>> If we have problem A and problem B, can't we work on both at
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> same
>>>>>> time? :)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Seriously it should not be anymore complex than monitoring
>>>>>>> last
>>>>>>> login
>>>>>>> into the relevant infrastructure pieces to determine if the
>>>>>>> relevant
>>>>>>> maintainer is active or not.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> bash script + a cron job should suffice to achieve just
that.
>>>>>> It's not at all that simple, I'm afraid.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How long since last activity do you consider someone
'inactive'
>>>>>> ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What if the packages that maintain simply don't need any
>>>>>> changes?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What if they are on vacation?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What if they are active on package A, but not doing something
>>>>>> on
>>>>>> package B that you wish they would?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I've long wanted to revamp our process.
>>>>>> I welcome concrete proposals to do so.
>>>>>
>>>>> Surely if an individual has not logged into for several months
>>>>> into our
>>>>> infrastructure he must be inactive no?
>>>>>
>>>>> Bash script + a cron job that monitors login should suffice to
>>>>> check and
>>>>> even email him asking him to confirm if he is active encase he
>>>>> has
>>>>> a low
>>>>> maintenance component and only logs in when something is filed
>>>>> ;)
>>>>>
>>>>> JBG
>>>> No, he can own only one package and be an upstream of the
>>>> package,
>>>> therefore he will login only for update of the package.
>>>>
>>>> You are using your use-case for everyone. If you insist on
>>>> automatic
>>>> process, then the metric should work with more data.
>>>>
>>>> Marcela
>>> Requiring action every 6 months, such as pressing button "Yes, I
>>> am
>>> still alive and kicking" in FAS after you are nagged by email,
>>> would
>>> be
>>> acceptable annoyance even for such package maintainers, wouldn't
>>> be?
>>>
>>> And there is such script, which is checking user activity on
>>> several
>>> places:
https://github.com/pypingou/fedora-active-user
>>>
>>> Vit
>>> --
>>> devel mailing list
>>> devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>>>
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
>
> --
> devel mailing list
> devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel