Re: [gentoo-dev] Developer Retirements

2009-03-10 Thread Doug Goldstein
On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 1:55 PM, Jeremy Olexa darks...@gentoo.org wrote: On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 1:44 PM, Doug Goldstein car...@gentoo.org 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

Re: [gentoo-dev] Developer Retirements

2009-03-10 Thread Doug Goldstein
On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 10:18 PM, Lukasz Damentko r...@gentoo.org 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

Re: [gentoo-dev] Developer Retirements

2009-03-10 Thread Petteri R├Ąty
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 go

[gentoo-dev] Developer Retirements

2009-03-09 Thread Doug Goldstein
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

Re: [gentoo-dev] Developer Retirements

2009-03-09 Thread Jeremy Olexa
On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 1:44 PM, Doug Goldstein car...@gentoo.org 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

Re: [gentoo-dev] Developer Retirements

2009-03-09 Thread Marijn Schouten (hkBst)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Jeremy Olexa wrote: On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 1:44 PM, Doug Goldstein car...@gentoo.org 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

Re: [gentoo-dev] Developer Retirements

2009-03-09 Thread Jeremy Olexa
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

Re: [gentoo-dev] Developer Retirements

2009-03-09 Thread Peter Alfredsen
On Mon, 9 Mar 2009 13:44:55 -0500 Doug Goldstein car...@gentoo.org 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

Re: [gentoo-dev] Developer Retirements

2009-03-09 Thread Gordon Malm
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 packages.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Developer Retirements

2009-03-09 Thread Lukasz Damentko
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