| 1 |
On Mon, May 29, 2006 at 07:30:25PM -0400, Alec Warner wrote: |
| 2 |
> So we created this awesome alias to put ebuilds that need a maintainer. |
| 3 |
> Good idea at the time, decent idea still. The problem? We have nearly |
| 4 |
> 2000 open bugs assigned to maintainer-wanted[1]. I would like to |
| 5 |
> discuss policy on these. Do we keep them, do we get a group of people |
| 6 |
> to slowly review and discard them? Do we mind having a ton of things |
| 7 |
> open like this (a quasi-ebuild db of sorts). Is bugs the right place |
| 8 |
> FOR THIs sort of thing, or can we improve somewhere/how? |
| 9 |
Could we establish policies for closing them or leaving them to sit |
| 10 |
open? |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
- Upstream dead, previously submitted URLs no longer functional (yes, |
| 13 |
there are actually some like this!). |
| 14 |
- No ebuild included. |
| 15 |
- Upstream says obsolete in favour of another package. |
| 16 |
- Dev notes obsolete in favour of another package - suggest it to the |
| 17 |
submitter, and see what they say. |
| 18 |
- Major unresolved security issues. |
| 19 |
- Excessive complexity / unsuitable for ebuild installs (eg apps that |
| 20 |
are meant to be built and run from the same directory). |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
I'm in favour of leaving stuff sitting there, until a developer with a |
| 23 |
need comes along (I wouldn't use an untrusted tree even if there was |
| 24 |
one). |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
At the same time, existing developers and teams should be encouraged to |
| 27 |
look at those under maintainer-wanted, and consider stuff there. |
| 28 |
I try to keep an eye out for app-backup and other fields that I'm |
| 29 |
involved in. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
-- |
| 32 |
Robin Hugh Johnson |
| 33 |
E-Mail : robbat2@g.o |
| 34 |
GnuPG FP : 11AC BA4F 4778 E3F6 E4ED F38E B27B 944E 3488 4E85 |
Archives