| 1 |
On Sun, Mar 27, 2011 at 3:59 PM, Markos Chandras <hwoarang@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Sun, Mar 27, 2011 at 01:17:46PM +0530, Nirbheek Chauhan wrote: |
| 3 |
>> On Sun, Mar 27, 2011 at 10:15 AM, Jeremy Olexa <darkside@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
>> > Can this practice of adding m-n packages to gentoo-x86 be stopped? If you |
| 5 |
>> > add it, take responsibility for it, please. If you don't want to take |
| 6 |
>> > responsibility for it, at least find a team that is willing to look after |
| 7 |
>> > it. |
| 8 |
>> > |
| 9 |
>> |
| 10 |
>> If you prohibit people from doing that, they'll just commit it |
| 11 |
>> normally, and then remove themselves a week later. |
| 12 |
>> |
| 13 |
>> I propose that we should be more aggressive about package.masking (for |
| 14 |
>> removal) all maintainer-needed packages from the tree by doing that |
| 15 |
>> one month after they become maintainer-needed. If someone doesn't |
| 16 |
>> volunteer to take care of it, it probably wasn't important anyway. |
| 17 |
>> |
| 18 |
>> |
| 19 |
> Uhm no. The fact that nobody takes care of it doesn't necessarily mean |
| 20 |
> that the package is broken and that it should be removed |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
I never said that such packages were broken. I'm saying that if no one |
| 24 |
wants to maintain them, they probably aren't needed by anyone, and we |
| 25 |
should clean such cruft from the tree. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
If they *are* needed by someone, then those folks should come forward |
| 28 |
to maintain it. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
-- |
| 31 |
~Nirbheek Chauhan |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
Gentoo GNOME+Mozilla Team |
Archives