| 1 |
On Sun, 2009-05-17 at 12:08 -0600, Ryan Hill wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Thu, 14 May 2009 03:32:12 +0300 |
| 3 |
> Mart Raudsepp <leio@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> > Project maintainer-wanted |
| 6 |
> > ========================= |
| 7 |
> > |
| 8 |
> > Abstract: |
| 9 |
> > There are currently quite some package requests (over 3000) languishing |
| 10 |
> > on bugzilla waiting for a developer or team to get interested and |
| 11 |
> > package it in the official gentoo-x86 portage tree. However in quite |
| 12 |
> > some cases that might not happen for quite a while even with very |
| 13 |
> > popular packages desired by users. The purpose of the maintainer-wanted |
| 14 |
> > project is to get as many of such packages to the official tree as |
| 15 |
> > possible as a stopgap solution. |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> Actually, I'm working on a "get the crap out of the tree" project that is |
| 18 |
> pretty much the exact opposite of this. ;) |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
I don't think it opposes it much, maybe only 2-5% of maintainer-needed |
| 21 |
packages. |
| 22 |
Popular packages aren't crap. Their packaging ease might be, but |
| 23 |
obviously people want to use those if they are popular, hence we can't |
| 24 |
dub them really "crap". |
| 25 |
We could say those packages are "crap" that get building bugs filed by |
| 26 |
tinderbox runs from Patrick, Diego and other such people, while no-one |
| 27 |
else has cared. The maintainer-wanted project would not be interested in |
| 28 |
any such packages. Those are obviously dead applications/libraries that |
| 29 |
are in no way popular and very beneficial to carry in the official tree. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
> But, things I like: |
| 32 |
> |
| 33 |
> - metrics for package popularity (can we do gentoo-stats already?) |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
Yeah, that'd be cool. Some other metrics ideas I brought out that can be |
| 36 |
used for this projects purposes while there is no gentoo-stats. |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
> - encouraging teams and maintainers to take an interest in unmaintained |
| 39 |
> packages |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
It being a project/team making it more likely it doesn't degrade over |
| 42 |
time when there is no dedicated team maintaining this. Maybe we could |
| 43 |
make it so that when a package maintained by someone specific |
| 44 |
(individual or team) that was taken over from maintainer-wanted would |
| 45 |
drop back to maintainer-wanted team instead of maintainer-needed herd, |
| 46 |
as the latter currently has technically no members. |
| 47 |
|
| 48 |
> - keeping track of maintainer-wanted/needed packages through categorization, |
| 49 |
> etc. |
| 50 |
> - proxy-maintainers |
| 51 |
> |
| 52 |
> These things I think would benefit both projects, as well as several others. |
| 53 |
> |
| 54 |
> I would actually rather see our overall package count dropping than growing, |
| 55 |
> but if we're adding quality, maintained stuff and tossing out the garbage then |
| 56 |
> I guess that's an improvement too. |
| 57 |
|
| 58 |
Indeed. |
| 59 |
|
| 60 |
-- |
| 61 |
Mart Raudsepp |
| 62 |
Gentoo Developer |
| 63 |
Mail: leio@g.o |
| 64 |
Weblog: http://planet.gentoo.org/developers/leio |
Archives