| 1 |
On Wed, 5 Mar 2008, Anant Narayanan <anant@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> If it's not too late for this month's meeting, I'd like to discuss |
| 4 |
> the possibility of including a new "post" in our developer base - |
| 5 |
> the package maintainer. |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
The idea is interesting. We have been thinking about something similar |
| 9 |
in the sci team. We are already maintaining some packages we don't know |
| 10 |
how to test. We also don't particularly like the idea of getting |
| 11 |
scientific results based on untested software. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
The overlays are not a solution. Packages in the overlays do not |
| 14 |
go through keywording or stabilisation processes, do not get all the |
| 15 |
publicity, and don't have bug support as advanced as the ones in the |
| 16 |
main tree. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
In all the sci* herds, we have more than 180 requests for new |
| 19 |
packages only in bugzilla. Our active team is small and overloaded with |
| 20 |
already more than 430 packages to maintain. Many other teams are facing |
| 21 |
the same issue. We have contacted some talented ebuild submitters who |
| 22 |
neither want to spend the time nor feel the responsibility of a full |
| 23 |
dev. A formal proxy-maintainer could really help in our sometimes blind |
| 24 |
maintaining duties. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
-- |
| 27 |
Sébastien |
Archives