[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: FE Package Status of Feb 16, 2006



Am Donnerstag, den 16.02.2006, 17:27 +0100 schrieb
Christian Iseli licr org:

> Here's the weekly status.
> 
Again: Thanks for you great work Christian.

>   I had a quick email exchange with Jef and I agreed 
> to add some stats about CVS repo and open bugs.  I unexpectedly found some 
> time to look into it and added some lines to the report.
>
>FE Package Status of Feb 16, 2006
> 
> The full report can be found here:
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/PackageStatus
> 

Quite long now. That's a bit problematic afaics. I really would like to
have the important stuff more highlighted.

For example, the stuff that really needs fixing (or at least needs a
explanation why it's broken) should also be sent to the list IMHO. Or
maybe directly to the E-Mail addresses listed. Maybe both.
I mean the following sections:

- "Packages not present in the development repo" -- There are a lot of
good reasons why this is the case. We maintain 
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/PackagesNoLongerInDevel
for those. But a lot of those that are still in the report look a bit
suspect -- maybe some are orphaned in fact? For example qemu -- dwmw2
probably has other things to do and forgot about it. He needs to be
poked. And I'm optimistic that someone else is interested in it and
would like to take over ownership of it in case dwmw2 lost interest.

- "Packages missing in owners.list" -- I send a mail out on that ropic
an hour ago. If all owners react we should get rid of those soon.

- "Orphaned packages present in the development repo" -- They normally
should be removed IMHO. Might be a bit to late for FE5, but I still
think we have enough time (BTW, why are they still there? We agreed in
one of the past FESCo meeting that they should be removed *before* the
mass rebuild)

There are some other sections like
- "Packages that have not yet completed review",
- "Potential problems:
   'We have X accepted, closed packages where I'm unable to find the
package in the development repo' 
   and 
   'We have 8 accepted, closed packages where I'm unable to find the
package in the owners file'"
- "Some cleanup needed"
- ...and maybe some other sections, too

Those should be trivial to fix for the owners. They just needed to be
poked by someone -- in an ideal world the script would do that directly.
Christian, would that be possible?

CU
thl
-- 
Thorsten Leemhuis <fedora leemhuis info>


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]