| 1 |
Il giorno gio, 10/02/2011 alle 19.44 +0100, Krzysztof Pawlik ha scritto: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> I don't agree with that - QA doesn't give anyone a silver bullet for |
| 4 |
> killing |
| 5 |
> whatever you want (or whatever you think should die). Maintainer must |
| 6 |
> be |
| 7 |
> *always* notified/pinged/mailed/im'ed/phoned/poked when his package is |
| 8 |
> going to |
| 9 |
> be masked & removed, if he's responsive then getting his ACK on the |
| 10 |
> matter |
| 11 |
> shouldn't be a problem, if not... at least you've tried. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
Please make up your mind on what you don't agree with. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
We don't need the ACK but we don't go around masking packages just |
| 16 |
because we feel like it. What gets the "Masked for removal by QA" |
| 17 |
treatment doesn't need an ACK because it's always stuff that was left |
| 18 |
untouched for months if not years. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
To rephrase it so that you can get it: |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
WE DON'T GO AROUND REMOVING ACTIVELY MAINTAINED PACKAGES. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
But when the package is unmaintained for months, we don't _need_ the |
| 25 |
ACK, nor we'd have to say "we're given the go by the maintainer" or |
| 26 |
"maintainer timeout". We simply don't do that if there *is* an active, |
| 27 |
interested maintainer. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
If you're the active maintainer, you can complain if we didn't poke you, |
| 30 |
but you have actually been poked and either not replied or acked it, you |
| 31 |
really don't have to read it on the mask reason, unless you suffer from |
| 32 |
amnesia. And if you're *not* the active maintainer, why would you care? |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
Remember that for *all* QA masking, the rule is simple: if you care |
| 35 |
about the package you bring it up to standard (cleanup ebuild, fix open |
| 36 |
bugs, make sure it doesn't bundle libraries, respects flags, and so on) |
| 37 |
and unmask it (the new versions obviously). Otherwise, it'll go away, |
| 38 |
full stop. |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
No, we're not going to stop if "somebody is looking at it": looking at |
| 41 |
it doesn't mean that it will ever work, and don't give me the usual |
| 42 |
"warn us before" story, 'cause we use 60 days for most un-responsive |
| 43 |
packages, and 30 days only when the packages are just so broken up |
| 44 |
there's no chance of them working. And even though I don't like it, |
| 45 |
there is *nothing* stopping anybody from fixing the packages and |
| 46 |
unmasking them on the 29th or 59th day. Warning enough? |
| 47 |
|
| 48 |
-- |
| 49 |
Diego Elio Pettenò — Flameeyes |
| 50 |
http://blog.flameeyes.eu/ |
Archives