1 |
On Mon, 28 Mar 2011 02:55:14 +0530 |
2 |
Nirbheek Chauhan <nirbheek@g.o> wrote: |
3 |
|
4 |
> The current problem is burnt-out or semi-active devs who commit |
5 |
> occasionally, but aren't able to help with any herd-related work |
6 |
> because they're out of touch. As such, their presence in the team |
7 |
> gives a false indication of strength. This problem was much less |
8 |
> severe in 2007 (afair). |
9 |
|
10 |
What? If anything it was much worse. It used to be next to impossible to get |
11 |
any answer whatsoever out of some herds until you gave up and fixed it |
12 |
yourself. Then they would bitch you out for touching their junk. My job has |
13 |
gotten a lot easier lately. |
14 |
|
15 |
> > The community got pissed when I deleted unmaintained packages from the |
16 |
> > tree 'just because it was unmaintained.' Thats why there were a set |
17 |
> > of criteria for removal. Maybe they changed their mind and you can |
18 |
> > convince them. |
19 |
> |
20 |
> Well, I bet that more than half of them retired or stopped being active. |
21 |
|
22 |
Nope, still here, still bitching. :) |
23 |
|
24 |
> > At least during my tenure there were still hundreds of |
25 |
> > unmaintained and broken packages; so I didn't much care about |
26 |
> > unmaintained but working stuff (since there was plenty of work to do.) |
27 |
> > I would argue the tree is still in a similar state. |
28 |
> |
29 |
> The fun part is that we really don't even know in what state those |
30 |
> packages are w.r.t. runtime issues. I know that deigo's tinderbox |
31 |
> keeps track of compile-time issues *extremely* well, but we have zero |
32 |
> runtime testing. |
33 |
|
34 |
Well, that /is/ what bugzilla is for, after all. We can only fix what we |
35 |
know is broken. And I don't see how that's any different than "maintained" |
36 |
packages. |
37 |
|
38 |
> >> I really don't understand *why* people want to keep around |
39 |
> >> unmaintained packages. If a package is not maintained, we should come |
40 |
> >> up and say it outright. Trying to maintain the illusion of maintenance |
41 |
> >> is really bad — for each person reporting a bug about a package, 100 |
42 |
> >> people who got that same bug don't report it at all. So what happens |
43 |
> >> when there are just 50 users for some packages? Half the time we won't |
44 |
> >> even know that one of them is broken[1]. The rest of the time, users |
45 |
> >> will get a bad impression of Gentoo saying "Man, half the packages |
46 |
> >> don't even work". |
47 |
> > |
48 |
> > Properly tagged I don't think there is any illusion. |
49 |
> > Maintainer-needed is maintainer-needed after all. |
50 |
> |
51 |
> The problem is that from the PoV of the user, everything in the tree |
52 |
> is "official". After all, that's how all the distros function. |
53 |
|
54 |
The problem is that you assume that anything that is maintainer-needed is |
55 |
automatically broken, when the vast majority of it is not. Would it make you |
56 |
feel better if packages had default herds they could fall back on rather than |
57 |
go maintainer-needed (eg. app-crypt packages would automatically go into the |
58 |
crypto herd, media-gfx go to graphics, etc.)? That's something we could be |
59 |
more aggressive about. |
60 |
|
61 |
> > So launch gstats and get usage numbers. If no one is using a package |
62 |
> > that is a keen indicator it can be punted; however no one will get off |
63 |
> > their ass and get more data to back anything up (myself included...) |
64 |
> |
65 |
> If we launch gstats *today*, it'll take us at least a long time before |
66 |
> we get decent numbers, and even after that, those numbers will be |
67 |
> biased towards those people who are really active in following Gentoo |
68 |
> news and developments. Unlike Firefox's usage stats, we have no way of |
69 |
> prompting pre-existing gentoo installations with a "Do want to take |
70 |
> part in gstats?" question. |
71 |
|
72 |
Last I checked we had a nifty news system for making announcements. And I |
73 |
thought we were supposed to have Smolt support like two years ago. What |
74 |
happened to it? |
75 |
|
76 |
> > All of your points above assume we have a decent metric of 'how many |
77 |
> > users a package has' and about the only way we know that is when users |
78 |
> > file bugs for it (version bump, bug, feature req, etc..) |
79 |
> |
80 |
> Yes. But we have another (more reliable) way: p.mask it and wait for |
81 |
> people to complain. |
82 |
|
83 |
Hey, maybe next we can slip random build errors into packages and see who |
84 |
files bugs. I don't know why people continue to think that breaking the |
85 |
tree to see who complains is an acceptable form of QA. |
86 |
|
87 |
|
88 |
-- |
89 |
fonts, gcc-porting, it makes no sense how it makes no sense |
90 |
toolchain, wxwidgets but i'll take it free anytime |
91 |
@ gentoo.org EFFD 380E 047A 4B51 D2BD C64F 8AA8 8346 F9A4 0662 |