1 |
On Mi, 2011-06-22 at 19:18 +0300, Markos Chandras wrote: |
2 |
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
3 |
> Hash: SHA512 |
4 |
> |
5 |
> On 22/06/2011 06:47 μμ, Christoph Mende wrote: |
6 |
> > On Mi, 2011-06-22 at 18:33 +0300, Markos Chandras wrote: |
7 |
> >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
8 |
> >> Hash: SHA512 |
9 |
> >> |
10 |
> >> On 22/06/2011 06:19 ??, Dane Smith wrote: |
11 |
> >>> - gpg control packet |
12 |
> >>> All, |
13 |
> >>> [..] |
14 |
> >>> Thanks! |
15 |
> >>> |
16 |
> >>> [1] http://dev.c1pher.net/index.php/2011/03/c1phers-adopt-a-package-program/ |
17 |
> >>> |
18 |
> >> Hi Dane, |
19 |
> >> |
20 |
> >> I tried to do the same a year ago. Have a look here. It may help you |
21 |
> >> understand why that effort did not succeed |
22 |
> >> |
23 |
> >> http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/gentoo/dev/209204 |
24 |
> > |
25 |
> > I see concerns about to-be-orphaned ebuilds where proxied maintainers |
26 |
> > only care about the ebuild for a short period. This would only be a |
27 |
> > problem with new ebuilds that will be added to the tree with a proxy |
28 |
> > maintainer. Instead of encouraging that, this project could have a goal |
29 |
> > to reduce m-n packages by assigning proxy maintainers. |
30 |
> > So no new packages, only old ones revived. Sounds reasonable to me. |
31 |
> > |
32 |
> This is what treecleaners try to do. Announce the upcoming removal of a |
33 |
> package so users can step up and maintain a package |
34 |
|
35 |
Well yes, but with such a project users might notice the packages before |
36 |
they're about to be removed. Also the important difference is that not |
37 |
one Gentoo dev does the commits, but many - whoever reads the |
38 |
mail/ticket/bug/whatever first. |
39 |
|
40 |
> > Although I didn't read the full thread, so please don't decapitate me if |
41 |
> > there were other concerns. |
42 |
> |
43 |
> The purpose of Dane's proposal is to push ebuilds to portage tree that |
44 |
> you, as developer, have no interest in them at all, but users do. If the |
45 |
> proxy-maintainer disappears, you can always leave it portage tree as m-n |
46 |
> (assuming no open bugs) or ask treecleaners to remove it. |
47 |
|
48 |
Guess I'm proposing something different then. |