1 |
On Mon, 1 Apr 2013 09:57:05 -0400 |
2 |
Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o> wrote: |
3 |
|
4 |
> > 1. Get more people to join these herds (devs, future recruits, ...) |
5 |
> > and set up project, leads and proper organization. *snip* |
6 |
> |
7 |
> Sure, non-controversial IF there is interest. |
8 |
|
9 |
Yeah, I know of an user that has interest; but it'll take at least two |
10 |
months (possibly more) before he can go through recruiting. There may |
11 |
possibly be more users out there. Interest may not be the problem here. |
12 |
|
13 |
> > 2. Combine multiple herds in one bigger "network" herd. *snip* |
14 |
> |
15 |
> I REALLY don't think this is a good idea. You might as just have one |
16 |
> big herd and call it "maintainer-wanted" or even "gentoo." |
17 |
> |
18 |
> ... |
19 |
> |
20 |
> When you lump a bunch of stuff into a big amorphous blob and put 47 |
21 |
> people in charge of it, then nobody really cares about anything. It |
22 |
> just results in 47 people with bugzilla in their killfile. |
23 |
> |
24 |
> ... |
25 |
> |
26 |
> I suspect that the only reason some devs are listed in herds that |
27 |
> appear inactive is that at some point in time they were the sole |
28 |
> maintainer of a single package they actually cared about, and somebody |
29 |
> decided to put that package in a herd, and then the dev got added to |
30 |
> the alias so that they were still "allowed" to maintain it (or some |
31 |
> variation on that theme). The dev really could care less about the |
32 |
> other 47 packages in the herd. |
33 |
> |
34 |
> ... |
35 |
> |
36 |
> Things won't get any better by listing an email address that nobody |
37 |
> follows in the metadata (an email that 50 people get and all ignore |
38 |
> is no better). |
39 |
|
40 |
This is an exaggeration, the herd should be kept at a reasonable amount; |
41 |
we're talking about 19 people here, if you drop those that are just |
42 |
there for a single package or two you may even drop this to ~10 devs. |
43 |
|
44 |
> Individual devs work because there is somebody who is accountable for |
45 |
> keeping at least a reasonable level of quality, and their pride is |
46 |
> likely to spur them on to take care of the package. |
47 |
> |
48 |
> Active herds work because there is a team with a leader who |
49 |
> collectively don't want to look bad when things aren't working. The |
50 |
> herd could have a large or small project team looking after it - it |
51 |
> just matters that they care. |
52 |
|
53 |
I don't see why it's impossible for ~10 devs to organize themselves in |
54 |
a way they care about the packages; the lack of communication also plays |
55 |
a role in bugs that are left open, bringing small herds together deals |
56 |
with this as 10 devs are more likely to communicate than 2 devs. |
57 |
|
58 |
Not that I'm rooting for this, but it's an interesting alternative. |
59 |
|
60 |
> > 3. The one you suggest. *snip* |
61 |
> |
62 |
> If no herd forms, the list of affected packages should be |
63 |
> announced, and if nobody adds themselves to the metadata within n |
64 |
> days they go to maintainer-needed. |
65 |
|
66 |
Yes, I know and understand the approach taken. My wonder was rather what |
67 |
the outcome of this approach would be, but for that I'd need actual |
68 |
statistics and graphs on how this has happened in the past; basically |
69 |
the answer to the question: For a given set of packages released to |
70 |
maintainer-needed, how much other devs pick them up, how many package |
71 |
end up in proxy-maintainers, how much remain unmaintained, how much end |
72 |
up treecleaned, ... |
73 |
|
74 |
It's statistics like these that may help make a more educated choice, |
75 |
or at least be aware of future problems to deal with as a result of that |
76 |
choice. We're talking about a few hundred packages, that's a huge list. |
77 |
|
78 |
> As I've stated before maintainer-needed packages should only be |
79 |
> treecleaned if they are, in fact, broken (a few debatable cases have |
80 |
> come up, but for the most part this is what happens). A few bugs that |
81 |
> don't impact most users in a serious way should not be grounds for |
82 |
> removal. However, if the package has a blocker or serious quality |
83 |
> issue then it should be removed. |
84 |
|
85 |
Ah, while the front page of the TreeCleaner Project seems to indicate |
86 |
it also happens to unmaintained packages, this is hidden away at the |
87 |
bottom of the policy. I agree. |
88 |
|
89 |
> As far as improving manpower and such - I think everybody is |
90 |
> supportive of this. However, it is important that Gentoo not be held |
91 |
> back by not wanting to break packages that aren't maintained - |
92 |
> otherwise it will become irrelevant. Proxy maintenance is better |
93 |
> supported now than it ever has been in the past, so if people want to |
94 |
> step up without having to become devs they should do so. |
95 |
|
96 |
http://euscan.iksaif.net/herds/proxy-maintainers/ |
97 |
http://euscan.iksaif.net/maintainers/maintainer-needed@g.o/ |
98 |
|
99 |
Looking at the packages graphs on euscan at the bottom, it seems that |
100 |
there are about four times more packages unmaintained compared to |
101 |
those that are proxy maintained. While it is properly supported, I guess |
102 |
it needs some more attention in one or another way... |
103 |
|
104 |
-- |
105 |
With kind regards, |
106 |
|
107 |
Tom Wijsman (TomWij) |
108 |
Gentoo Developer |
109 |
|
110 |
E-mail address : TomWij@g.o |
111 |
GPG Public Key : 6D34E57D |
112 |
GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2 ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D |