| 1 |
On 18/04/06, foser <foser@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Sun, 2006-04-16 at 16:42 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: |
| 3 |
> > well the logical thing would be to go to bugzilla and search for "cccc" ... |
| 4 |
> > and guess what ? no more open bug reports |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> I already did that when I wrote it, actually there still is an open bug |
| 7 |
> for it. So I guess you didn't actually go trough these proposed steps |
| 8 |
> yourself. Anyway, it is completely besides the point, because you or |
| 9 |
> anyone else won't check a week or a month from now if there's bug filed |
| 10 |
> against cccc, that is what maintenance is about. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
Are you suggesting that all packages with long standing open bug |
| 13 |
reports should be removed? There are thousands that fit that |
| 14 |
description. If not, then what is your definition of "maintained"? It |
| 15 |
could be argued that since Mike fixed the cccc bug, it is maintained, |
| 16 |
even though he isn't the maintainer. Likewise, there are hundreds of |
| 17 |
packages that have a maintainer listed, or are assigned to a herd, |
| 18 |
where bug reports are essentially ignored. Should those also be |
| 19 |
removed? |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
> > > I mean, you aren't the maintainer. And there is still the outstanding |
| 22 |
> > > issue that it is unmaintained in Gentoo, are you going to fix that or |
| 23 |
> > > not ? Otherwise it should be masked and removed. |
| 24 |
> > |
| 25 |
> > this is the same argument as already made and rejected ... |
| 26 |
> |
| 27 |
> Where was this rejected and by whom ? By you I guess ? That just doesn't |
| 28 |
> cut it, errors made in the past are no reason to make them again in the |
| 29 |
> future. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
Did you read the previous discussion link I provided? The argument has |
| 32 |
been rejected in the past because it would lead to hundreds of |
| 33 |
otherwise working packages being removed. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
> > feel free to mask |
| 36 |
> > and remove the hundreds of other packages that have no maintainer |
| 37 |
> |
| 38 |
> So now we do have your blessing ? cccc is then up for removal as of this |
| 39 |
> moment. |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
Maybe you aren't a native English speaker; it was clear from Mike's |
| 42 |
post that he would rather you didn't go ahead with removing hundreds |
| 43 |
of packages. |
| 44 |
|
| 45 |
-- |
| 46 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives