Doug Goldstein wrote:
>
> Granted the people I've recently talked to about this or the people I
> remember bringing this issue up in the past had this happen to them
> before we had this firm policy in place so really you're addressing a
> lot of the issues.
>
> But the whole act of making them g
On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 10:18 PM, Lukasz Damentko wrote:
> Okay, let me explain in detail.
>
> Undertakers contact devs who didn't touch CVS for at least two months,
> are considered inactive in the bugzilla and have no current .away set.
>
> After the initial contact, something like 3/4 of e-mail
On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 1:55 PM, Jeremy Olexa wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 1:44 PM, Doug Goldstein wrote:
> > I'm wondering what exactly is the harm in letting developers idle for a
> > while? While they might not be actively committing they are still
> > knowledgeable people that are just as
Okay, let me explain in detail.
Undertakers contact devs who didn't touch CVS for at least two months,
are considered inactive in the bugzilla and have no current .away set.
After the initial contact, something like 3/4 of e-mailed people
respond very quickly and explain why they are gone (usuall
On Monday, March 9, 2009 11:44:55 Doug Goldstein wrote:
> I'm wondering what exactly is the harm in letting developers idle for a
> while? While they might not be actively committing they are still
> knowledgeable people that are just as capable as everyone else to push in a
> fix for small package
On Mon, 9 Mar 2009 13:44:55 -0500
Doug Goldstein wrote:
> I'm wondering what exactly is the harm in letting developers idle for
> a while?
Nothing, as long as they don't pretend to be maintaining packages while
they idle. See compnerd and his tonne of system-packages for reference.
It unnecessar
Marijn Schouten (hkBst) wrote:
As opposed to those same bugs being assigned to maintainer-needed and getting
lots of attention?
The inactive dev can just as easily resolve a m-needed bug as one that
is assigned to himself. The added benefit that some people actually look
at the m-needed que
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jeremy Olexa wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 1:44 PM, Doug Goldstein wrote:
>> I'm wondering what exactly is the harm in letting developers idle for a
>> while? While they might not be actively committing they are still
>> knowledgeable people that ar
On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 1:44 PM, Doug Goldstein wrote:
> I'm wondering what exactly is the harm in letting developers idle for a
> while? While they might not be actively committing they are still
> knowledgeable people that are just as capable as everyone else to push in a
> fix for small packages
I'm wondering what exactly is the harm in letting developers idle for a
while? While they might not be actively committing they are still
knowledgeable people that are just as capable as everyone else to push in a
fix for small packages. There's lots of bugs in bugzilla with items that
just need so
10 matches
Mail list logo
