Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Project proposal -- maintainer-wanted

[Mart Raudsepp <leio@gentoo.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2751 bytes --]

On K, 2009-05-20 at 11:36 -0400, Richard Freeman wrote:
> Mart Raudsepp wrote:
> > 
> > The maintainer-wanted team owns that foo package then, which is why
> > having a different mail alias than the existing one for "new package
> > requests that aren't in gentoo tree yet" would be a good idea.
> > 
> 
> Ok, I think I see where you're coming from.  Essentially 
> maintainer-wanted is a group for people who want to collectively manage 
> ebuilds that don't otherwise fall into any particular project/herd. 
> Almost like a "misc" herd.
> 
> If the packages are actually being maintained then I have no issues at 
> all with the proposal - in fact I'd endorse it (for what little that is 
> worth).  However "maintainer-wanted" seems like a bit of a misnomer - 
> these ebuilds would in fact have a maintainer.  Perhaps another name 
> could be used so that it is easy to distinguish between:
> 
> 1.  Packages not in the tree (bugzilla requests/etc).
> 2.  Packages in the tree that truly nobody is caring for.
> 3.  Packages in the tree that the proposed project is caring for but 
> would love to see adopted into another herd/project.
> 4.  Packages that are part of a more dedicated project/herd, or which 
> have attention from one or more particular developers.
> 
> I don't question the value in having group #3 which I think is what 
> you're proposing.  But, perhaps it should have a specific name/alias so 
> that we can tell that a package belongs to it.  Your proposed team could 
> scour #1/2 for new builds, and bump builds in #3 back to #2 if 
> necessary.  Treecleaners would prune #2 and ignore #3.  Of course, 
> cooperation with Sunrise would also be a plus.

Yes, that's all pretty much what I have in mind here. I have also
acknowledge in various e-mails that we need a better naming for the
"herd" name (not necessarily for the team) to distinguish bugzilla bugs
that are maintained by this proposed team and new package request bugs
that are still waiting for someone to pick them up.
Also I hope the flow from #3 to #2 doesn't end up happening often and
that the team would be caring about the packages in acceptable quality
until it can flow to under #4. So some (in)formal policies amongst the
team members to ensure the team doesn't get overwhelmed would seem
appropriate.

I hope the person I found to lead this project (if in the lack of others
willing to do that when it becomes an actual project) clarifies things
in the project proposal draft that opened this thread, which could then
in the end be mostly re-used as the project page text on gentoo.org


-- 
Mart Raudsepp
Gentoo Developer
Mail: leio@gentoo.org
Weblog: http://planet.gentoo.org/developers/leio

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]