On Mi, 2011-06-22 at 19:18 +0300, Markos Chandras wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA512
> On 22/06/2011 06:47 μμ, Christoph Mende wrote:
> > On Mi, 2011-06-22 at 18:33 +0300, Markos Chandras wrote:
> >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> >> Hash: SHA512
> >> On 22/06/2011 06:19 ??, Dane Smith wrote:
> >>> - gpg control packet
> >>> All,
> >>> [..]
> >>> Thanks!
> >>>  http://dev.c1pher.net/index.php/2011/03/c1phers-adopt-a-package-program/
> >> Hi Dane,
> >> I tried to do the same a year ago. Have a look here. It may help you
> >> understand why that effort did not succeed
> >> http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/gentoo/dev/209204
> > I see concerns about to-be-orphaned ebuilds where proxied maintainers
> > only care about the ebuild for a short period. This would only be a
> > problem with new ebuilds that will be added to the tree with a proxy
> > maintainer. Instead of encouraging that, this project could have a goal
> > to reduce m-n packages by assigning proxy maintainers.
> > So no new packages, only old ones revived. Sounds reasonable to me.
> This is what treecleaners try to do. Announce the upcoming removal of a
> package so users can step up and maintain a package
Well yes, but with such a project users might notice the packages before
they're about to be removed. Also the important difference is that not
one Gentoo dev does the commits, but many - whoever reads the
> > Although I didn't read the full thread, so please don't decapitate me if
> > there were other concerns.
> The purpose of Dane's proposal is to push ebuilds to portage tree that
> you, as developer, have no interest in them at all, but users do. If the
> proxy-maintainer disappears, you can always leave it portage tree as m-n
> (assuming no open bugs) or ask treecleaners to remove it.
Guess I'm proposing something different then.