1 |
On Sun, Mar 27, 2011 at 9:30 AM, Jeremy Olexa <darkside@g.o> wrote: |
2 |
> On 03/27/2011 02:47 AM, Nirbheek Chauhan wrote: |
3 |
>>> On 03/26/2011 12:52 AM, Mike Frysinger (vapier) wrote: |
4 |
>> I propose that we should be more aggressive about package.masking (for |
5 |
>> removal) all maintainer-needed packages from the tree by doing that |
6 |
>> one month after they become maintainer-needed. If someone doesn't |
7 |
>> volunteer to take care of it, it probably wasn't important anyway. |
8 |
>> |
9 |
> |
10 |
> That is abit extreme for me (read: I don't have motivation to fight the |
11 |
> flames), but I wouldn't complain if someone else did it to be honest. |
12 |
> |
13 |
|
14 |
So, I'd like to propose that somewhere between adding stuff to the |
15 |
tree that nobody has any intent to look after, and removing stuff that |
16 |
has been around a long time with no clear problems, there is a happy |
17 |
medium. |
18 |
|
19 |
How about this - if you add a package to the tree, you are responsible |
20 |
for it for at least a year. If you can get somebody else to take it |
21 |
then that is fine. If it has problems QA can flame you (privately at |
22 |
first) for it, and you should feel appropriately embarrassed and fix |
23 |
it, or remove it. |
24 |
|
25 |
After a year, it can go maintainer-needed. Before a year, it cannot, |
26 |
and you either need to actually maintain it, or remove it. Developers |
27 |
should not be adding packages they have no interest in whatsoever, or |
28 |
that have so many QA issues initially that they're high-maintenance |
29 |
right from the start. If a dev gets a package from a proxy-maintainer |
30 |
and they disappear then they can nurse it along or remove it as makes |
31 |
sense - we should be nice to these devs but we shouldn't just cut the |
32 |
packages loose. |
33 |
|
34 |
Packages that are maintainer-needed stay around as long as they're not |
35 |
making trouble. If they get lots of complaints they get announced on |
36 |
-dev, and after two weeks they get masked if not picked up. If they |
37 |
end up blocking something then likewise they get announced and then |
38 |
masked. That basically is the current practice anyway. |
39 |
|
40 |
I don't see a need to remove m-n packages wholesale just to say that |
41 |
we did it, or to punish users for not becoming devs or whatever. |
42 |
|
43 |
And of course, the usual long-term solutions like making |
44 |
proxy-maintaining easier should be pursued. |
45 |
|
46 |
Rich |