Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Alec Warner <antarus@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Cc: Nirbheek Chauhan <nirbheek@g.o>, Jeremy Olexa <darkside@g.o>
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in dev-python/PyZilla: PyZilla-0.1.0.ebuild ChangeLog metadata.xml
Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2011 19:18:29
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in dev-python/PyZilla: PyZilla-0.1.0.ebuild ChangeLog metadata.xml by Nirbheek Chauhan
On Sun, Mar 27, 2011 at 1:43 PM, Nirbheek Chauhan <nirbheek@g.o> wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 27, 2011 at 7:00 PM, Jeremy Olexa <darkside@g.o> wrote: >> On 03/27/2011 02:47 AM, Nirbheek Chauhan wrote: >>> If you prohibit people from doing that, they'll just commit it >>> normally, and then remove themselves a week later. >> >> Why does anyone need to *add* a package that is maintainer-needed? This is >> one of the problems of the gentoo-x86 tree - too many maintainer-needed >> packages. > > I'm just pointing out that if you prohibit that by policy, this is > what people will do. The real problem is that maintainer-needed > packages are allowed to remain in the tree *indefinitely*. > >>> I propose that we should be more aggressive about package.masking (for >>> removal) all maintainer-needed packages from the tree by doing that >>> one month after they become maintainer-needed. If someone doesn't >>> volunteer to take care of it, it probably wasn't important anyway. >>> >> >> That is abit extreme for me (read: I don't have motivation to fight the >> flames), but I wouldn't complain if someone else did it to be honest. >> > > Just start removing old[1] maintainer-needed packages. If people > complain, tell them to start maintaining it. If they continue to > complain, ignore them. As tree-cleaner, you have the power to do this > and not take bullshit from people about it.
The intent of the TreeCleaner project (years ago) was to essentially look for packages in bugzilla that had lots of bugs and no maintainer. For a while beandog essentially maintained a site that tracked this for us (Gentoo Package that need Lovin' was the awesome title.) From that list you either fixed the problems and commited them (e.g. you were a roving package maintainer) or you pmasked it and marked it for the deadpool. There is not much policy on treecleaning a package just because no one has touched it. Time since last touch was just one of a dozen indicators used to find packages that are broken (because a package not touched since 2006 is also not likely to compile.) -A
> > > 1. Set old as one month, with a 2 month package.mask duration before > it's removed. > -- > ~Nirbheek Chauhan > > Gentoo GNOME+Mozilla Team > >