1 |
On Sat, 2019-03-23 at 10:05 -0700, Raymond Jennings wrote: |
2 |
> On Sat, Mar 23, 2019 at 7:18 AM Alec Warner <antarus@g.o> wrote: |
3 |
> |
4 |
> > |
5 |
> > On Sat, Mar 23, 2019 at 3:32 AM Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote: |
6 |
> > |
7 |
> > > Hi, |
8 |
> > > |
9 |
> > > Gentoo is still having a major problem of unmaintained packages. |
10 |
> > > I'm not talking about pure 'maintainer-needed' here but packages that |
11 |
> > > have apparent maintainers and stay under the radar for long, harming |
12 |
> > > users in the process. I'd like to query potential solutions as how we |
13 |
> > > could improve this and look for new maintainers sooner. |
14 |
> > > |
15 |
> > > |
16 |
> > > The current state |
17 |
> > > ================= |
18 |
> > > The definition of an unmaintained package here is a bit blurry. For our |
19 |
> > > needs, let's say that an unmaintained package is a package that is not |
20 |
> > > getting attention of any of the maintainers, whose bugs are not looked |
21 |
> > > at, that does not receive version bumps or simply fails to build for |
22 |
> > > a long time. |
23 |
> > > |
24 |
> > > This is especially the case with 'revived herds', i.e. projects that |
25 |
> > > were formed from old herds. Their main characteristic is that they |
26 |
> > > 'maintain' a large number of loosely-related packages, and their |
27 |
> > > developers take care of only a small subset of them. Sadly, we still |
28 |
> > > have people who cherish that model, and instead of taking packages they |
29 |
> > > care about themselves, they shove it into one of 'their' herds. |
30 |
> > > |
31 |
> > > So far we're rarely catching such cases directly. Sometimes it happens |
32 |
> > > when another developer tries to use the package and notices the problem, |
33 |
> > > then finds that it's been reported a long time ago and never received |
34 |
> > > any attention. |
35 |
> > > |
36 |
> > > Sometimes, after retiring a developer we notice that he had 'maintained' |
37 |
> > > packages that were broken for years and never received any attention. |
38 |
> > > There are even real cases of developers taking over broken packages just |
39 |
> > > to prevent them from being lastrited but without ever fixing them. |
40 |
> > > |
41 |
> > > Then, some of the packages are noticed as result of major API update |
42 |
> > > trackers, such as the openssl-1.1+ tracker or ncurses[tinfo] tracker. |
43 |
> > > Those API changes provoke build failures, and while investigating them |
44 |
> > > we discover that some of the software hasn't seen any upstream attention |
45 |
> > > since 2000 (!), not to mention maintainers that could actually patch |
46 |
> > > the issues. |
47 |
> > > |
48 |
> > > |
49 |
> > > Version bump-based inactivity? |
50 |
> > > ============================== |
51 |
> > > One of the options would be to monitor inactivity as negligence to bump |
52 |
> > > packages. With euscan and/or repology, we are at least able to |
53 |
> > > partially monitor and report new versions of software (I think someone |
54 |
> > > used to do that but I don't see those reports anymore). While this |
55 |
> > > still requires some manual processing (esp. given that repology results |
56 |
> > > are sometimes mistaken), it would be a step forward. |
57 |
> > > |
58 |
> > > The counterarguments for doing this is that not all version bumps are |
59 |
> > > meaningful to Gentoo. We'd have to at least be able to filter out |
60 |
> > > development releases if maintainers are not doing them. Sometimes we |
61 |
> > > also skip releases if they don't introduce anything meaningful to Gentoo |
62 |
> > > users. Finally, some developers reject new versions of software for |
63 |
> > > various reasons. |
64 |
> > > |
65 |
> > |
66 |
> > I've also considered to just use time. |
67 |
> > |
68 |
> > Many *packages* have not been touched in N time. While some software |
69 |
> > doesn't get updates often, even routine maintenance should require edits on |
70 |
> > a fairly regular basis. |
71 |
> > |
72 |
> > |
73 |
> > > |
74 |
> > > Bugzilla-based inactivity? |
75 |
> > > ========================== |
76 |
> > > I've noticed something interesting in Fedora lately. They have a policy |
77 |
> > > that if a package build failure is reported (note: they are reporting |
78 |
> > > them automatically) and the maintainer does not update it from the 'NEW' |
79 |
> > > state, it is automatically orphaned after 8 weeks. Effectively, |
80 |
> > > if the maintainer does not take care (or at least pretends to) |
81 |
> > > of the package, it is orphaned automatically. |
82 |
> > > |
83 |
> > > I suppose we might be able to look for a similar policy in Gentoo. |
84 |
> > > However, there are two obvious counterarguments. Firstly, this would |
85 |
> > > create 'busywork' that people would be required to do in order to |
86 |
> > > prevent from orphaning their packages. Secondly, a fair number of |
87 |
> > > developers would just do this 'busywork' to every new bug just to avoid |
88 |
> > > the problem, rendering the measure ineffective. |
89 |
> > > |
90 |
> > |
91 |
> > Avoid letting the perfect be the enemy of the good here. Any metric can be |
92 |
> > gamed by developers; but it turns out we must choose some metric to drive |
93 |
> > the organization. I'm fairly sure not *all* developers will automate this |
94 |
> > busywork; because *some* of us want to see the number of unmaintained |
95 |
> > packages reduced; resulting in a net-win. |
96 |
> > |
97 |
> > |
98 |
> > > |
99 |
> > > What can we actually do? |
100 |
> > > ======================== |
101 |
> > > Do you have any specific ideas how we could actually improve |
102 |
> > > the situation? I'm particularly looking for things we could do at least |
103 |
> > > semi-automatically, without having to spend tremendous effort looking |
104 |
> > > through thousands of unhandled bugs manually. |
105 |
> > > |
106 |
> > |
107 |
> > So I'd recommend avoiding a specific implementation; which means don't |
108 |
> > trigger off of a specific signal. |
109 |
> > |
110 |
> > Signals: |
111 |
> > 1) euscan first; because its most accurate and plausible already |
112 |
> > implemented. |
113 |
> > 2) Date-based scanning; its trivial to implement. |
114 |
> > |
115 |
> > So now for each package, we have 2 straightforward signals. When was it |
116 |
> > last touched, how many versions behind? |
117 |
> > |
118 |
> > Rules: |
119 |
> > A package is unmaintained if it: |
120 |
> > - Has not been touched in 5 years |
121 |
> > - Is behind 3 versions AND hasn't been touched in 2 years |
122 |
> > - Is behind 5 versions AND hasn't been touched in 1 years |
123 |
> > |
124 |
> > As we add more signals (e.g. doesn't build, or unfixed bugs) we can add |
125 |
> > additional rules. |
126 |
> > |
127 |
> > We could generate a QA report per package on the qa reports page. |
128 |
> > If there is an API for request the QA report, we could cross-link from |
129 |
> > p.g.o. |
130 |
> > |
131 |
> > -A |
132 |
> > |
133 |
> > |
134 |
> > |
135 |
> > > -- |
136 |
> > > Best regards, |
137 |
> > > Michał Górny |
138 |
> > > |
139 |
> > > |
140 |
> As a side observation I'd like to exempt a package from being flagged as |
141 |
> unmaintained if there's nothing wrong with it. If upstream is idle and the |
142 |
> package in a quiet state simply because there's no work needing done, then |
143 |
> the package should be left alone. |
144 |
|
145 |
This is the attitude that means that few months later a single person is |
146 |
overburdened with a few dozens unmaintained packages all suddenly |
147 |
falling apart. Just like ncurses[tinfo]. Or openssl-1.1. |
148 |
|
149 |
-- |
150 |
Best regards, |
151 |
Michał Górny |