Steffen Joeris wrote: > On Sat, 8 Dec 2007 06:39:15 pm Raphael Hertzog wrote: >> On Sat, 08 Dec 2007, Nico Golde wrote: >>>> To make sure packages don't end up with only inactive (co-)maintainers. >>> That could be avoided if you check that every maintainer of >>> the package is MIA. >> A MIA-check is not something instantaneous. It takes several months. So >> it's not really possible... >> >>> I still don't see a reason for a bug. An active maintainer >>> will notice this and will fix it by himself I guess. >> I don't agree with this. In a team, it's difficult to notice that one >> member disappeared. And lack of involvement in one package doesn't mean >> being completely MIA. As co-maintainer I wouldn't want to remove someone >> if I'm not sure that he won't come back. > At least use important. I actually don't care, if there is a bug or not for > the issue. But I do care about the testing migration. We do have DDs, who are > doing work only during the weekend (which is perfectly acceptable). So if you > write an RC bug on monday, this might hold up the testing migration for a > couple of days. Imagine there is a security fix waiting for migration. Do you > want to keep this from migrating? Please don't make the work of the > testing-security team harder ;)
By popular demand the MIA Team will be using non-RC (important) severity and track the bugs with usertags (User: [EMAIL PROTECTED], Usertags: mia-teammaint). Cheers Luk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
