| 1 |
On Sun, Mar 27, 2011 at 7:00 PM, Jeremy Olexa <darkside@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 03/27/2011 02:47 AM, Nirbheek Chauhan wrote: |
| 3 |
>> If you prohibit people from doing that, they'll just commit it |
| 4 |
>> normally, and then remove themselves a week later. |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> Why does anyone need to *add* a package that is maintainer-needed? This is |
| 7 |
> one of the problems of the gentoo-x86 tree - too many maintainer-needed |
| 8 |
> packages. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
I'm just pointing out that if you prohibit that by policy, this is |
| 11 |
what people will do. The real problem is that maintainer-needed |
| 12 |
packages are allowed to remain in the tree *indefinitely*. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
>> I propose that we should be more aggressive about package.masking (for |
| 15 |
>> removal) all maintainer-needed packages from the tree by doing that |
| 16 |
>> one month after they become maintainer-needed. If someone doesn't |
| 17 |
>> volunteer to take care of it, it probably wasn't important anyway. |
| 18 |
>> |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> That is abit extreme for me (read: I don't have motivation to fight the |
| 21 |
> flames), but I wouldn't complain if someone else did it to be honest. |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
Just start removing old[1] maintainer-needed packages. If people |
| 25 |
complain, tell them to start maintaining it. If they continue to |
| 26 |
complain, ignore them. As tree-cleaner, you have the power to do this |
| 27 |
and not take bullshit from people about it. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
1. Set old as one month, with a 2 month package.mask duration before |
| 31 |
it's removed. |
| 32 |
-- |
| 33 |
~Nirbheek Chauhan |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
Gentoo GNOME+Mozilla Team |
Archives