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

Re: Proposal for automation of MIA maintainer detection/processing

On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 17:52:19 +0100
Patrice Dumas <pertusus free fr> wrote:

> This has already been discussed a long time ago, and a difficulty was
> that for every kind of issue that could trigger MIA, there can be a
> reason why the packager hasn't acted.

A simple comment in the bug stating that they've received the report,
don't have time to work on it, somebody else please fix it would work
perfectly.  The maintainer or co-maintainer responded, there is a clear
expectation set about the work needed to be done, and the detection
would not trigger on that particular bug.

> In the wiki the end of the Detection is unclear to me:
>   Upon subsequent runs of the script if a maintainer triggers as MIA
> a db lookup will be done to determine if the maintainer has already
> been contacted, and has been given the allowed allotment of time to
> respond. If the allotment has been consumed without response, the
> script will kick in to processing mode.
> The wording of the beginning of this part is unclear to me, and even
> more unclear is whether a human action is needed or not to declare
> somebody MIA. My personal point of view is that the final procedure,
> that is a reporter declares on devel list that another packager is MIA
> and FESCo accepts seems better to me.

The "human" action to avoid being declared MIA is to respond to the
bug.  If a bug is responded to, the maintainer would not be considered

> Having automated QA bugs done to detect such MIA maintainer and track 
> all the packages at once seems good to me, but as a data gathering 
> process, and maybe to avoid for a real person to have to go through 
> the first steps of the current MIA policy, but it seems to me that
> it is not right if a maintainter may be considered MIA only by
> automatic means.

Part of the automated process is to post to the mailing list, as well
as directly to the maintainer, and to all the co-maintainers for all
said maintainer's packages.  Responding to the bugs in question would
end the MIA declaration process, just as it would should a human send
those messages.

Jesse Keating
Fedora -- All my bits are free, are yours?

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

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