| 1 |
On 11/19/2017 01:45 PM, Philip Webb wrote: |
| 2 |
> 171119 James Le Cuirot wrote: |
| 3 |
>> On Sun, 19 Nov 2017 08:50:20 -0500 |
| 4 |
>> Philip Webb <purslow@××××××××.net> wrote: |
| 5 |
>>> 171118 David Seifert wrote: |
| 6 |
>>>> As the Games team does not have enough manpower to keep tabs on all |
| 7 |
>>>> games packages, we have dropped all games-* ebuilds to unstable |
| 8 |
>>>> keywords (modulo those required by stable non-games packages). |
| 9 |
>>> Isn't this overkill in the absence of widespread bug reports for games ? |
| 10 |
>>> 'Stable' doesn't mean well-maintained, |
| 11 |
>>> but in the tree for some time & no serious bug reports. |
| 12 |
>> There are plenty of bug reports for games. |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> What percentage of games pkgs have bugs ? |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> Eg I amuse myself with games-puzzle/sgt-puzzles ; |
| 17 |
> it is maintained upstream with regular updates. |
| 18 |
> The only unresolved bug appears to be 602696 |
| 19 |
> which relates to version 20161207, which is no longer in the tree : |
| 20 |
> why is the bug still marked 'confirmed' ? Shouldn't it be 'resolved' ? |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> What justification is there for marking this pkg 'unstable' ? |
| 23 |
> My guess is that there are other games pkgs with no valid bug. |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
> Marking all games 'unstable' still seems to be overkill. |
| 26 |
> |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
I am going to add my +1 to overkill. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
Firstly, we need to reclarify... Games Project doesn't have exclusive |
| 31 |
control over the games-* categories... So, this should only apply to |
| 32 |
packages that the games project controls. The original message doesn't |
| 33 |
really convey that. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
Secondly, if the issue is Games Project, then if there is another |
| 36 |
maintainer involved in maintaining a package, then the decision to drop |
| 37 |
keywords should be mutual with the other maintainer, or Games should |
| 38 |
consider dropping maintainership in deference to the other, active |
| 39 |
maintainer. |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
Which brings me to the third point... If the Games Project admits that |
| 42 |
it doesn't have the manpower to maintain things, and is forcibly |
| 43 |
dropping all stable keywords as part of their non-maintenance, I think |
| 44 |
they should adopt a policy of allowing anyone to come in and take over |
| 45 |
(and potentially remove them) from the package. Someone else should be |
| 46 |
able to vouch for and work for the stability and quality of a package |
| 47 |
and take responsibility for it. By Games Project being in the metadata, |
| 48 |
it gives the false impression that they are responsible. |
| 49 |
|
| 50 |
I'm the maintainer of games-puzzle/sgt-puzzles and while Games Project |
| 51 |
is in the metadata, I'm really the primary maintainer. I don't want my |
| 52 |
stable keywords dropped. You are welcome to drop your project from the |
| 53 |
metadata, but please leave my package, and all those that others are |
| 54 |
responsible for, alone. |
| 55 |
|
| 56 |
-- |
| 57 |
NP-Hardass |
Archives