Re[2]: [gentoo-dev] ROX: maintainer-wanted and apps out of date

[Jakub Moc]

12.9.2005, 19:32:32, Carsten Lohrke wrote:

> To have even more unmaintained packages in the tree. The tree it is that
> needs QA. If "maintainer-wanted" bugs stay open forever - who cares.

[left for later reference]


> Thanks for the pointer. :p So from the user point of view it's better to file
> a request without attaching an ebuild, because it wouldn't directly resolved
> WONTFIX?! (Before you answer that: From the user point of view, not your's.)
> I mean I'm often giving a pointer on an formal issue or a very wrong attempt,
> but being that strict is not neecessary, discouraging and probably some even
> take the chance to molest about Gentoo, imho.

Not at all. There are *lots* of people that actually fix their ebuilds very
quickly and appreciate the comments. And - as everywhere - there's also a bunch
of people that start bitching instead of taking 5 minutes to fix the thing.

Since you said above, that you really don't care if those user-submitted
ebuilds will ever get into portage or will stay in maintainer-wanted queue
forever and that's the stuff in portage that actually matters QA-wise, I'm
missing why are you worried about people not submitting their ebuilds any more.

At the very least, reviewing user-submitted ebuilds and marking things
WONTFIX/CANTFIX/REVIEWED makes it possible to filter out the outdated and
dead-upstream crap, as well as things about which those people who filed the
bugs don't care any more. And, if someone picks those ebuilds up and decides to
maintain them, he can focus more on testing the actual app then fixing a broken
ebuild (or even committing a broken ebuild into the tree).


-- 
Best regards,

 Jakub Moc
 mailto:jakub@g.o
 GPG signature: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xCEBA3D9E
 Primary key fingerprint: D2D7 933C 9BA1 C95B 2C95  B30F 8717 D5FD CEBA 3D9E

 ... still no signature ;)