| 1 |
On Sun, 06 Jan 2008 11:36:06 -0600 |
| 2 |
Ryan Hill <dirtyepic@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> > How will providing specific examples of how people are being held up |
| 4 |
> > not be beneficial to the decision-making process? |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> First you have to acknowledge that old perpetually open bugs and old |
| 7 |
> unmaintained ebuilds are a maintenance burden. There seems to be a |
| 8 |
> consensus among maintainers that they are, but when given the |
| 9 |
> examples of xfce and media-* you responded that those are not a |
| 10 |
> priority for the archs in question. Well, that's nice, but they are |
| 11 |
> for the maintainers of those herds and that's what we're talking |
| 12 |
> about. We're not actively looking for ways to dump more work on the |
| 13 |
> arch teams, but we're also tired of having more work dumped on us. |
| 14 |
> We're looking for a solution that has both sides happy here, but that |
| 15 |
> won't happen if you don't admit there's a problem. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
Ok, so explain: |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
* How perpetually open bugs are a maintenance burden. They don't |
| 20 |
generate emails and they don't require any work on the maintainer's |
| 21 |
part. Is the mere fact that they show up in queries all you're |
| 22 |
concerned about, and if so, have you considered either adapting your |
| 23 |
queries or requesting a special keyword to make such bugs easier to |
| 24 |
filter? |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
* How unmaintained ebuilds are a maintenance burden. Doesn't that |
| 27 |
contradict itself? |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
-- |
| 30 |
Ciaran McCreesh |
Archives