| 1 |
On Sunday 08 January 2006 01:35, Stuart Herbert wrote: |
| 2 |
> I agree that some cleaning is needed (and some of my packages are |
| 3 |
> desperate for it!), but I'm totally opposed to this idea. I think the |
| 4 |
> idea of shutting up shop for three months (presumably with a "closed |
| 5 |
> for refurbishment" sign on the door) would let down our users who rely |
| 6 |
> on us for regular package updates, and would be a massive PR disaster. |
| 7 |
> Cleaning is something that has to happen all the time; it needs to be |
| 8 |
> a natural and sustainable part of what we do every day. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
As Donnie already pointed out, I did not mean version bumps, but only new |
| 11 |
packages. How about this idea: Everyone who adds a new package, has to check |
| 12 |
and fix an unmaintained package before. This should be a non-issue for |
| 13 |
seasoned developers, but would slowdown those, who continually add new |
| 14 |
packages without caring for what they should maintain as well as those who |
| 15 |
become new devs, add a bunch of packages and hide again, leaving the |
| 16 |
maintenance to others. This would also have the benefit of continuous QA of |
| 17 |
unmaintained stuff. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
Regarding PR: The quality of parts of the tree is more than enough bad PR. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
> If you feel so strongly about this, why not setup a "cleaning crew" |
| 22 |
> project that goes around doing exactly this? |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
Don't you think that it is pretty much barefaced to let a small group do the |
| 25 |
dirty, boring and annoying work, while those who don't care a bit can |
| 26 |
continue to do so?! |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
Carsten |
Archives