| 1 |
Mart Raudsepp wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> The maintainer-wanted team owns that foo package then, which is why |
| 4 |
> having a different mail alias than the existing one for "new package |
| 5 |
> requests that aren't in gentoo tree yet" would be a good idea. |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
Ok, I think I see where you're coming from. Essentially |
| 9 |
maintainer-wanted is a group for people who want to collectively manage |
| 10 |
ebuilds that don't otherwise fall into any particular project/herd. |
| 11 |
Almost like a "misc" herd. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
If the packages are actually being maintained then I have no issues at |
| 14 |
all with the proposal - in fact I'd endorse it (for what little that is |
| 15 |
worth). However "maintainer-wanted" seems like a bit of a misnomer - |
| 16 |
these ebuilds would in fact have a maintainer. Perhaps another name |
| 17 |
could be used so that it is easy to distinguish between: |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
1. Packages not in the tree (bugzilla requests/etc). |
| 20 |
2. Packages in the tree that truly nobody is caring for. |
| 21 |
3. Packages in the tree that the proposed project is caring for but |
| 22 |
would love to see adopted into another herd/project. |
| 23 |
4. Packages that are part of a more dedicated project/herd, or which |
| 24 |
have attention from one or more particular developers. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
I don't question the value in having group #3 which I think is what |
| 27 |
you're proposing. But, perhaps it should have a specific name/alias so |
| 28 |
that we can tell that a package belongs to it. Your proposed team could |
| 29 |
scour #1/2 for new builds, and bump builds in #3 back to #2 if |
| 30 |
necessary. Treecleaners would prune #2 and ignore #3. Of course, |
| 31 |
cooperation with Sunrise would also be a plus. |
Archives