1 |
I propose a new QA subproject, the TreeCleaners. |
2 |
|
3 |
This is a delicate subject for some developers, other developers don't |
4 |
care, and yet others want the cruft in the tree removed. The Tree |
5 |
Cleaning project's main goal is to identify broken and unmaintained |
6 |
packages in the tree and either get them fixed or mask and remove them. |
7 |
|
8 |
Criteria: |
9 |
1. Packages slated for removal must have no active maintainer. This is |
10 |
accomplished by looking in the package's metadata.xml for the maintainer |
11 |
tag. The maintainer tag must contain an active (non-retired) developer |
12 |
or team. The tree cleaners will maintain a list of ebuilds assigned to |
13 |
maintainer-needed; this list may end up on the web similar to Debian's |
14 |
WNPP[1]. A package with missing metadata.xml is assumed to be unmaintained. |
15 |
|
16 |
2. Packages slated for removal must have open bugs filled against them. |
17 |
It is not the policy of the QA team nor this subproject to remove |
18 |
packages because they have no maintainer. There are plenty of |
19 |
completely working packages in the tree with no maintainer; we are not |
20 |
trying to remove those. |
21 |
|
22 |
3. Packages slated for removal with simple to fix bugs may be fixed by |
23 |
the tree cleaners if a project member elects to do so. Many of the bugs |
24 |
are relatively minor ( depend fixes, revbumps, etc ) and could be done |
25 |
by someone given a bit of time. This isn't meant as a means to |
26 |
perpetually keep crap in the tree, moreso that in some cases minor bugs |
27 |
against a package are not grounds for removal. |
28 |
|
29 |
4. Preferably packages slated for removal shall have a dead or |
30 |
unresponsive upstream. An upstream that isn't interested in maintenance |
31 |
means more work for Gentoo in keeping the package up to date. For |
32 |
packages that already lack a maintainer in Gentoo, a dead upstream means |
33 |
there is no developer and no upstream for a package; aka no one to do |
34 |
the work. A dead upstream is not *required* however, crap ebuilds for |
35 |
packages with an active upstream are still valid to be removed if there |
36 |
are major bugs filed against them. |
37 |
|
38 |
5. Packages slated for removal shall have a last rites e-mail sent to |
39 |
the gentoo-dev mailing list. There will be no packages disappearing |
40 |
randomly out of the tree due to the tree cleaner project members. |
41 |
Transparency is key here, both on bugs, in package.mask, and on the |
42 |
mailing list. developers and users both need to know what is going on. |
43 |
|
44 |
6. Packages slated for removal shall have a 30 day period in |
45 |
package.mask prior to removal. This is tree cleaner policy, and it's |
46 |
one that I hope other developers will adopt. I've seen things pmasked |
47 |
and removed after a week, a "couple of days", or just pmasked and never |
48 |
removed. The 30 day period allows everyone using the package to see the |
49 |
masking message and the corresponding bug when they use portage. |
50 |
|
51 |
Questions and Comments are welcome, as always. |
52 |
|
53 |
-Alec Warner |
54 |
|
55 |
[1] http://www.debian.org/devel/wnpp/ |
56 |
-- |
57 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |