1 |
Fabian Groffen wrote: |
2 |
|
3 |
> On 17-06-2008 09:54:46 +0200, Tiziano Müller wrote: |
4 |
>> From the GLEP: |
5 |
>> *snip* |
6 |
>> The biggest differences to the current system are: |
7 |
>> * A team is not implicitly defined as the people who maintain the |
8 |
>> packages in a certain herd |
9 |
>> * A herd is really only a logical unit of packages and may therefore |
10 |
>> _not_ possess any ressources |
11 |
>> * A team may maintain more than one herd (respectively the packages |
12 |
>> within them) |
13 |
>> *snip* |
14 |
> |
15 |
> While you're at redefining the terms `herd' and `team', I'd like your |
16 |
> GLEP to address the maintenance issue as well. With teams being allowed |
17 |
> to maintain a package, and the team being ``a denoted group of people'' |
18 |
> you block out potential maintenance from others. |
19 |
No I don't. The GLEP doesn't mention whether packages may be maintained by |
20 |
others. The GLEP only says that in addition to being maintained by single |
21 |
people a package may also be maintained by a team. |
22 |
|
23 |
> |
24 |
> With Gentoo being a project with some devs, of which many quite limited |
25 |
> involved, I argue productivity for some of our devs is limited by the |
26 |
> barrier of the ``maintainer''. |
27 |
> |
28 |
> Recently I've noticed that maintainer-needed and maintainer-wanted |
29 |
> ebuilds are outlawed and hence can be maintained by anyone. In |
30 |
maintainer-needed should not be used in the tree directly (it can be used in |
31 |
an overlay though => sunrise). |
32 |
|
33 |
> particular treecleaners seem to have started handling the trivial bugs |
34 |
> on those packages, which I consider a positive movement. While |
35 |
> maintainer-needed and maintainer-wanted have a negative taste, I feel |
36 |
> they potentially aren't as negative as they sound. I think there are |
37 |
> many more devs just wasting their time in IRC because none of ``their'' |
38 |
> packages have ``solveable'' bugs. |
39 |
Would be nice if that'd be true. All maintainers who have no work to do: |
40 |
please ping me, I've got enough for all of you. |
41 |
|
42 |
> |
43 |
> Dropping explicit maintenance for packages that are not critical (which |
44 |
> are many IMO) would allow for a new ``team'' consisting of all of our |
45 |
> bored devs that feel like harvesting the low hanging fruit by doing |
46 |
> trivial version bumps, cleanups and trivial patches. |
47 |
Sure, let's create a team "janitors". |
48 |
|
49 |
> |
50 |
> In other words, I would like your proposal to: |
51 |
> - make a difference between ``must be maintained'' packages (e.g. |
52 |
> base-system) and the rest |
53 |
> - for the non-critical packages define a group of ``experts'' that does |
54 |
> not exclude ``foreign'' maintenance -- what if a herd is understaffed? |
55 |
> - have a structure (e.g. time-out rule) that allows the ``experts'' to |
56 |
> do full maintenance of their packages if they are active |
57 |
> |
58 |
> Your GLEP as it is now doesn't have any added value to me, as it seems |
59 |
> only to change things into other terminology, more files, and cause an |
60 |
> avalanche of other GLEPs without a clear rationale. |
61 |
> |
62 |
|
63 |
Well, I kept it short by intention since I really do believe that we first |
64 |
have to make things clear. I think you underestimate the proposal a little |
65 |
(although it may depend on how you implicitly understand our |
66 |
metastructure): a) It is completely unclear what a team is or what it's |
67 |
allowed to do currently. b) from an organizational and linguistic point of |
68 |
view it doesn't make sense that a ``herd`` has an alias. c) it doesn't make |
69 |
sense to assign bugs to a ``herd`` (neither organizational nor |
70 |
linguistical). I've added a section "Motivation" to the GLEP to explain |
71 |
this. |
72 |
|
73 |
Now about what you suggest: Write a GLEP containing what you propose above |
74 |
because I agree that it's currently unclear what happens to a package where |
75 |
the maintainer got retired or doesn't want to maintain it anymore. In the |
76 |
GLEP you can also write down that everybody can fix & bump packages with no |
77 |
maintainer. |
78 |
|
79 |
|
80 |
-- |
81 |
gentoo-dev@l.g.o mailing list |