| 1 |
On Tue, 2006-04-18 at 14:11 +0100, Chris Bainbridge wrote: |
| 2 |
> Are you suggesting that all packages with long standing open bug |
| 3 |
> reports should be removed? There are thousands that fit that |
| 4 |
> description. If not, then what is your definition of "maintained"? It |
| 5 |
> could be argued that since Mike fixed the cccc bug, it is maintained, |
| 6 |
> even though he isn't the maintainer. Likewise, there are hundreds of |
| 7 |
> packages that have a maintainer listed, or are assigned to a herd, |
| 8 |
> where bug reports are essentially ignored. Should those also be |
| 9 |
> removed? |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
No, I don't know why you jump to that conclusion. There are people |
| 12 |
responsible there, you can contact them if you feel things are ignored. |
| 13 |
Or better, you can try and help out on those outstanding bugs and solve |
| 14 |
them, so the maintainers would only need to apply a fix. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
> Did you read the previous discussion link I provided? The argument has |
| 17 |
> been rejected in the past because it would lead to hundreds of |
| 18 |
> otherwise working packages being removed. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
You get a lot more out of that thread than I do, I guess it's a matter |
| 21 |
of interpretation. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
> Maybe you aren't a native English speaker; it was clear from Mike's |
| 24 |
> post that he would rather you didn't go ahead with removing hundreds |
| 25 |
> of packages. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
I don't know how this relates to my mother tongue, but I'm not speaking |
| 28 |
of a mass removal or anything. You make it into that all the time, maybe |
| 29 |
you should let go of that mindset. I think that if we come across cases |
| 30 |
like this the goal should be to clear up the confusion. Either find a |
| 31 |
maintainer or clean it out. That way eventually 'hundreds' becomes |
| 32 |
'dozens' of unmaintained packages and maybe some day even less, it's a |
| 33 |
gradual process. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
- foser |
Archives