| 1 |
Markus Ullmann wrote: |
| 2 |
> Donnie Berkholz schrieb: |
| 3 |
>> What is bad about the current state of leaving maintainer-wanted bugs |
| 4 |
>> open? What problem is it causing that you want to fix? |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> Currently a bunch of them are either |
| 7 |
> - dead upstream for quite some time |
| 8 |
> - don't work with a current system |
| 9 |
Those should just be closed WONTFIX then, surely? |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
> - are replaced by better tools we already have in the tree |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
I'd do the same for those, personally. I don't see the point if the packages |
| 14 |
are not going to be brought into the tree, since there's no need for them. |
| 15 |
There are plenty of other ebuilds to deal with, without getting into stuff |
| 16 |
Gentoo already provides. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
> People put a lot of work into that, maybe it's their first ebuild) or |
| 19 |
> for some apps it's simply a hard job to hack up a working ebuild. When |
| 20 |
> that stuff then just bitrods without any notice, users become |
| 21 |
> disappointed. |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
Agreed. This relates to the wider issue of prerecruitment that hkBst |
| 24 |
mentioned. If the "collective web interface" idea is good, why not give it |
| 25 |
encouragement? Or at least some constructive feedback if you don't like the |
| 26 |
idea. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
There doesn't seem to be much encouragement to users who try to help out |
| 29 |
(with the odd exception, which stands out on the m-l simply because it is |
| 30 |
so rare); rather there's more an attitude of snobbery, which is ironic |
| 31 |
given how little coding is involved in ebuild maintenance, and frankly |
| 32 |
seems bizarre given how overloaded you all are. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
Although ofc that attitude is meted out to other devs as well. I dunno how |
| 35 |
you all put up with it tbh; it certainly doesn't look fun from the outside. |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
-- |
| 39 |
gentoo-project@g.o mailing list |
Archives