| 1 |
On Sun, Sep 1, 2013 at 10:01 AM, Tom Wijsman <TomWij@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> If you want to help, please join the herd. If nobody joins, we will |
| 3 |
> likely proceed with dropping it in a month and moving its packages |
| 4 |
> to maintainer-needed letting everybody want the packages they prefer. |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> Another option is to combine the net herds together into a bigger net |
| 7 |
> herd, as I have previously suggested; we might need to look into that. |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
I'd think twice before doing that. If there is a real synergy (common |
| 10 |
eclass use, need to manage deps and releases, etc) then it might make |
| 11 |
sense. Otherwise all you end up doing is delaying the inevitable, |
| 12 |
except this time with even a larger group of packages moving to |
| 13 |
maintainer-needed. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
Herds should be reasonably-sized, and they should be packages that |
| 16 |
make sense to maintain together - not just collections of packages |
| 17 |
that fit some theme. We already have categories. If maintainers |
| 18 |
aren't coordinating across a herd then better to just split it up. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
Note - I'm not calling for any dramatic changes here - if teams of |
| 21 |
maintainers are already working closely together by all means keep |
| 22 |
your herds. However, if a herd is just a dumping ground for packages |
| 23 |
that nobody really looks at, then it isn't being used properly. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
Rich |
Archives