| 1 |
On Sun, Jan 08, 2006 at 02:40:47PM +0100, Carsten Lohrke wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Sunday 08 January 2006 01:35, Stuart Herbert wrote: |
| 3 |
> > I agree that some cleaning is needed (and some of my packages are |
| 4 |
> > desperate for it!), but I'm totally opposed to this idea. I think the |
| 5 |
> > idea of shutting up shop for three months (presumably with a "closed |
| 6 |
> > for refurbishment" sign on the door) would let down our users who rely |
| 7 |
> > on us for regular package updates, and would be a massive PR disaster. |
| 8 |
> > Cleaning is something that has to happen all the time; it needs to be |
| 9 |
> > a natural and sustainable part of what we do every day. |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> As Donnie already pointed out, I did not mean version bumps, but only new |
| 12 |
> packages. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
> How about this idea: Everyone who adds a new package, has to check |
| 15 |
> and fix an unmaintained package before. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
Guessing you missed the previous flame war about how trying to force |
| 18 |
people to do something doesn't actually work? |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
> This should be a non-issue for |
| 22 |
> seasoned developers, |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
You're assuming seasoned devs don't occasionally go MIA on |
| 25 |
QA/maintenance? It's not the case... |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
> but would slowdown those who continually add new |
| 29 |
> packages [ snip vitriolic opinions ] |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
If you've got an issue with devs adding stuff and abandoning/not |
| 32 |
supporting their stuff, hey that's fine, bitch at QA. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
Don't go freezing the whole tree just because you're after slapping at |
| 35 |
a couple of devs over perceived wrongs. |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
> Don't you think that it is pretty much barefaced to let a small group do the |
| 39 |
> dirty, boring and annoying work, while those who don't care a bit can |
| 40 |
> continue to do so?! |
| 41 |
|
| 42 |
If you've got an issue with certain devs (seems to be the case from |
| 43 |
your statement), take it up with QA/ombudsman, not the loop |
| 44 |
around attempt you're doing here. |
| 45 |
|
| 46 |
If you're after trying to decrease the unmaintained packages, like I |
| 47 |
said, generate a list _from the tree_, compare it to bugs, etc. Do |
| 48 |
the legwork, kick off the effort to cover the gap. |
| 49 |
|
| 50 |
Basically, you want to decrease bugs for unmaintained, decrease the |
| 51 |
gap of maintained vs unmaintained, work on _that_ rather then trying |
| 52 |
to force everyone to drop what they're doing and fix an issue they're |
| 53 |
already working on at their own pace. |
| 54 |
|
| 55 |
Folks *are* handling retirement of unmaintained packages, and taking |
| 56 |
on maintainance of packages already- just watch -dev for the |
| 57 |
occasional announcements if you think otherwise. |
| 58 |
|
| 59 |
~harring |
Archives