Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Alec Warner <antarus@g.o>
To: Gentoo Dev <gentoo-dev@l.g.o>
Cc: proxy-maint@g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFD] Adopt-a-package, proxy-maintenance, and other musings
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2016 18:35:28
Message-Id: CAAr7Pr9gKgjjqVGF9r_QHPvzcP7=6Pk4FDsYm2uM_7HR13NtmA@mail.gmail.com
In Reply to: [gentoo-dev] [RFD] Adopt-a-package, proxy-maintenance, and other musings by NP-Hardass
1 On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 9:44 PM, NP-Hardass <NP-Hardass@g.o> wrote:
2
3 > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
4 > Hash: SHA256
5 >
6 > With all of the unclaimed herds and unclaimed packages within them, I
7 > started to wonder what will happen after the GLEP 67 transition
8 > finally comes to fruition. This left me with some concerns and I was
9 > wondering what the community thinks about them, and some possible
10 > solutions.
11 >
12 > There is a large number of packages from unclaimed herds that, at this
13 > time, look like they will not be claimed by developers. This will
14 > likely result in a huge increase in maintainer-needed packages (and
15 > subsequent package rot). This isn't to say that some of these
16 > packages weren't previously in a "maintainer-needed" like state, but
17 > now, they will explicitly be there.
18 >
19
20 Speaking as the dude who founded the treecleaners project...all things die.
21 Even software. While some may yearn for a software archive (nee,
22 graveyard!), I put forth that the gentoo-x86 tree is not such a thing. Do
23 not weep for the unmaintained packages that will be cleaned![1]
24
25
26 >
27 > A possible approach to reducing this is to adopt some new policies.
28 >
29 > The first of which is an "adopt-a-package" type program. In
30 > functionality, this is no different than proxy-maintenance, however,
31 > this codifies it into an explicit policy whereby users are encouraged
32 > to step and take over a package. This obviously requires a greater
33 > developer presence in the proxy-maint project (or something similar),
34 > but, personally, I think that a stronger dev presence in proxy-maint
35 > would be better for Gentoo as a whole.
36 >
37
38 I'm not sure what concrete proposal you are actually making here. Sure I'd
39 love for users to actually maintain the software that they want in the
40 tree. How do we encourage such behavior?
41
42
43 >
44 > The second policy change would be that maintainer-needed packages can
45 > have updates by anyone while maintaining the standard "you fix it if
46 > you break it" policy. This would extend to users as well. With the
47 > increased ease that users can contribute via git/github, they should
48 > be encouraged to contribute and have their efforts facilitated to ease
49 > contributions to whatever packages they desire (within the
50 > maintainer-needed category).
51 >
52
53 So how do user contributed changes land (the aforementioned proxy-maint
54 team?)
55
56
57 >
58 > Similar to the concept of a "bugday," coupled with above, an
59 > "ebuildday" where users and devs get together so users can learn to
60 > write ebuilds and for devs to work together to maintain packages that
61 > usually fall outside their normal workload could prove beneficial to
62 > the overall health of Gentoo packaging.
63 >
64
65 We used to have bugday. I presume the person running it stopped. Feel free
66 to start it up again.
67
68
69 >
70 > Once again, these are just some random musings inspired by recent
71 > events on the dev ML, and thought it might be worth discussing.
72 > I've cc'd proxy-maint as a lot of this discussion is likely to involve
73 > them, and would like them to put in their official opinion as well.
74 >
75 >
76 > - --
77 > NP-Hardass
78 > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
79 > Version: GnuPG v2
80 >
81 > iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJWnc1RAAoJEBzZQR2yrxj7WMYQALdOH13N+N0hCuDrCKcFwhp1
82 > GjosbY2ZQsqVL8WX46K8I+Kr9EV/JD1LWfB5S24YMANFgk+iAHJUlDebKmbIOUek
83 > JiT1eRG8LrIJE3VWfMtJxMfPxzkYEPf+Ew3DXBADekhtWbIb3Ha9hWYGgD/gZ2UN
84 > vY0xDBU2oXuJjoSTYwfdbVXG950CgiEfI+QtaeHaMihdqR/ZB7WcHXx788EnnXeA
85 > Q9M3JtNbRyLL7UI7XeVzxN7A+ODhN3highYXELdImHR5fZh2T7sm1Limvev5lgaU
86 > uiugUMnFbDISqiWLSPFbTaJBwrl0tyqa9hjYnhP9LLj8zIXLe/PN+8hQ7Et8aq8w
87 > hRUr6ntm++4HFD2TKySZ4So09yntb+xapeFIM4UjTvN6Tfy2gUyTnpzDdsAlBoHt
88 > zhExBzidA+g1syCY5LrMkndP+8iKDDbUlPkMtfldf2XBMXu5jFBfUXKoZRFC9P27
89 > XOqneJHcBEjocjvcmnu4BeUz0+Nu3jRpQuGj35hNLTsFyG7Dh9Qw1eJ0mDnCm2PZ
90 > YrWWw2Z7nJGKsStwI3Ox6HIeXHuiFGup4XfveC0jE/ggZcK+E9jrkXDbwc9sOPYg
91 > WRMsgCHFHke1YgPhOxHA1RSE0bZv5j9CYkJx8piif8c0p1HkPUj93r3zgpycfSRi
92 > 35R7+OKBC4AQeIIoCBXI
93 > =5UdF
94 > -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
95 >
96 >

Replies