Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Formal Adopt a Package Program

[Markos Chandras]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

On 22/06/2011 07:42 μμ, Dane Smith wrote:
> On 06/22/11 12:41, Markos Chandras wrote:
>> On 22/06/2011 07:30 ¼¼, Dane Smith wrote:
>>> On 06/22/11 12:18, Markos Chandras wrote:
>>>> On 22/06/2011 06:47 ¼¼, Christoph Mende wrote:
>>>>> On Mi, 2011-06-22 at 18:33 +0300, Markos Chandras wrote:
>>>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>>>>> Hash: SHA512
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 22/06/2011 06:19 ??, Dane Smith wrote:
>>>>>>> - gpg control packet
>>>>>>> All,
>>>>>>> [..]
>>>>>>> Thanks!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [1] http://dev.c1pher.net/index.php/2011/03/c1phers-adopt-a-package-program/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Dane,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I tried to do the same a year ago. Have a look here. It may help you
>>>>>> understand why that effort did not succeed
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/gentoo/dev/209204
>
>>>>> I see concerns about to-be-orphaned ebuilds where proxied maintainers
>>>>> only care about the ebuild for a short period. This would only be a
>>>>> problem with new ebuilds that will be added to the tree with a proxy
>>>>> maintainer. Instead of encouraging that, this project could have a goal
>>>>> to reduce m-n packages by assigning proxy maintainers.
>>>>> So no new packages, only old ones revived. Sounds reasonable to me.
>
>>>> This is what treecleaners try to do. Announce the upcoming removal of a
>>>> package so users can step up and maintain a package
>>>>> Although I didn't read the full thread, so please don't decapitate me if
>>>>> there were other concerns.
>
>>>> The purpose of Dane's proposal is to push ebuilds to portage tree that
>>>> you, as developer, have no interest in them at all, but users do. If the
>>>> proxy-maintainer disappears, you can always leave it portage tree as m-n
>>>> (assuming no open bugs) or ask treecleaners to remove it.
>
>
>>> Yes, that was one aim, but the primary aim is to reduce m-n packages.
>>> That's what I've been doing so far and I think is what would be the
>>> primary goal of this "new" project.
>
>> If this is the primary goal then you should try to merge it to
>> treeclears project instead of creating a new one. Treecleaners is pretty
>> much the only project that advertises the maintainer-needed packages so
>> I think it makes sense to extend this project to meet your needs. We
>> might need to rename the treecleaner project to reflect the extended
>> goals if needed
>
>> [1]http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/qa/treecleaners/maintainer-needed.xml
>
> That's a good idea. It would help reduce the number of packages that
> have to get 'treecleaned' and it would have the added benefit that it
> might attract some much needed help to that project.
>
> Short version: I'm all for that.
>
In this case, I would advice you to start a discussion with
treecleaner@g.o so we can formalize the new project and come back
to this mailing list to discuss it with the rest of the devhood

- -- 
Regards,
Markos Chandras / Gentoo Linux Developer / Key ID: B4AFF2C2
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (GNU/Linux)
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=tbEE
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----