| 1 |
On Sun, Mar 27, 2011 at 1:43 PM, Nirbheek Chauhan <nirbheek@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Sun, Mar 27, 2011 at 7:00 PM, Jeremy Olexa <darkside@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
>> On 03/27/2011 02:47 AM, Nirbheek Chauhan wrote: |
| 4 |
>>> If you prohibit people from doing that, they'll just commit it |
| 5 |
>>> normally, and then remove themselves a week later. |
| 6 |
>> |
| 7 |
>> Why does anyone need to *add* a package that is maintainer-needed? This is |
| 8 |
>> one of the problems of the gentoo-x86 tree - too many maintainer-needed |
| 9 |
>> packages. |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> I'm just pointing out that if you prohibit that by policy, this is |
| 12 |
> what people will do. The real problem is that maintainer-needed |
| 13 |
> packages are allowed to remain in the tree *indefinitely*. |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
>>> I propose that we should be more aggressive about package.masking (for |
| 16 |
>>> removal) all maintainer-needed packages from the tree by doing that |
| 17 |
>>> one month after they become maintainer-needed. If someone doesn't |
| 18 |
>>> volunteer to take care of it, it probably wasn't important anyway. |
| 19 |
>>> |
| 20 |
>> |
| 21 |
>> That is abit extreme for me (read: I don't have motivation to fight the |
| 22 |
>> flames), but I wouldn't complain if someone else did it to be honest. |
| 23 |
>> |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
> Just start removing old[1] maintainer-needed packages. If people |
| 26 |
> complain, tell them to start maintaining it. If they continue to |
| 27 |
> complain, ignore them. As tree-cleaner, you have the power to do this |
| 28 |
> and not take bullshit from people about it. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
The intent of the TreeCleaner project (years ago) was to essentially |
| 31 |
look for packages in bugzilla that had lots of bugs and no maintainer. |
| 32 |
For a while beandog essentially maintained a site that tracked this |
| 33 |
for us (Gentoo Package that need Lovin' was the awesome title.) |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
From that list you either fixed the problems and commited them (e.g. |
| 36 |
you were a roving package maintainer) or you pmasked it and marked it |
| 37 |
for the deadpool. |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
There is not much policy on treecleaning a package just because no one |
| 40 |
has touched it. Time since last touch was just one of a dozen |
| 41 |
indicators used to find packages that are broken (because a package |
| 42 |
not touched since 2006 is also not likely to compile.) |
| 43 |
|
| 44 |
-A |
| 45 |
|
| 46 |
> |
| 47 |
> |
| 48 |
> 1. Set old as one month, with a 2 month package.mask duration before |
| 49 |
> it's removed. |
| 50 |
> -- |
| 51 |
> ~Nirbheek Chauhan |
| 52 |
> |
| 53 |
> Gentoo GNOME+Mozilla Team |
| 54 |
> |
| 55 |
> |
Archives