| 1 |
El jue, 28-03-2019 a las 15:53 +0100, Michał Górny escribió: |
| 2 |
> Hello, |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> In context of the recent plan of disbanding the Samba team, I'd like to |
| 5 |
> ask for better ideas on how to deal with projects that technically make |
| 6 |
> sense but are currently dead/defunct. This means that either they have |
| 7 |
> no members, all their members are inactive or simply don't want to work |
| 8 |
> on the specific project anymore. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> Of course, the first step is to look for new project members. However, |
| 11 |
> let's assume we've already done that and unsuccessfully. What should |
| 12 |
> happen next? |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> So far I've been leaning towards disbanding the project and moving |
| 15 |
> packages to maintainer-needed. This has the advantage of clearly |
| 16 |
> indicating that those packages are unmaintained, with all the common |
| 17 |
> implications of that. |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> However, it also has been pointed out that this frequently 'ungroups' |
| 20 |
> packages while being maintained by a single project makes sense for |
| 21 |
> them. I don't really have a strong opinion on this -- especially that |
| 22 |
> sometimes this actually helped people decide to take at least some of |
| 23 |
> the packages. On the other hand, Ada is an example of project that has |
| 24 |
> been recreated after being disbanded. |
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
> Do you have any suggestions how we could effectively achieve the effect |
| 27 |
> similar to 'maintainer-needed' without disbanding projects? |
| 28 |
> |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
Personally I would keep moving them to maintainer-needed. If some packages |
| 31 |
really need to be bumped in sync, we can add a comment to the affected ebuilds |
| 32 |
to remember it for any developer taking the package or going to fix some issue |
| 33 |
for it. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
About recreating the project after, it's ok for me as soon as the new project |
| 36 |
has active people for it. |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
Regards |
Archives