| 1 |
Robin H. Johnson wrote: |
| 2 |
> Could we establish policies for closing them or leaving them to sit |
| 3 |
> open? |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> - Upstream dead, previously submitted URLs no longer functional (yes, |
| 6 |
> there are actually some like this!). |
| 7 |
> - No ebuild included. |
| 8 |
> - Upstream says obsolete in favour of another package. |
| 9 |
> - Dev notes obsolete in favour of another package - suggest it to the |
| 10 |
> submitter, and see what they say. |
| 11 |
> - Major unresolved security issues. |
| 12 |
> - Excessive complexity / unsuitable for ebuild installs (eg apps that |
| 13 |
> are meant to be built and run from the same directory). |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
More or less what I've been doing for past few months... Today, I've |
| 16 |
also closed all ebuild requests 1+ year old w/ zero activity as CANTFIX, |
| 17 |
asking the reporter to attach an ebuild. Bugs like "I'd like to see |
| 18 |
foo/bar in portage, ktnxbye" don't need to sit in bugzilla for ages if |
| 19 |
noone is interested, not really useful. (And - as mentioned before, some |
| 20 |
automation of the process would be nice ;) |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
> At the same time, existing developers and teams should be encouraged to |
| 24 |
> look at those under maintainer-wanted, and consider stuff there. |
| 25 |
> I try to keep an eye out for app-backup and other fields that I'm |
| 26 |
> involved in. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
Also, please really close useless cruft when you come across it (see above). |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
-- |
| 32 |
Best regards, |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
Jakub Moc |
| 35 |
mailto:jakub@g.o |
| 36 |
GPG signature: |
| 37 |
http://subkeys.pgp.net:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xCEBA3D9E |
| 38 |
Primary key fingerprint: D2D7 933C 9BA1 C95B 2C95 B30F 8717 D5FD CEBA 3D9E |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
... still no signature ;) |
Archives