public inbox for gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Mart Raudsepp <leio@gentoo.org>
To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Project proposal -- maintainer-wanted
Date: Tue, 02 Jun 2009 00:19:23 +0300	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1243891163.21933.5.camel@localhost> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4A142367.5030903@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 --]

  reply	other threads:[~2009-06-01 21:18 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 36+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2009-05-14  0:32 [gentoo-dev] RFC: Project proposal -- maintainer-wanted Mart Raudsepp
2009-05-14  1:24 ` Gokdeniz Karadag
2009-05-14  1:27 ` AllenJB
2009-05-14 14:44   ` Richard Freeman
2009-05-15  7:43     ` Thilo Bangert
2009-05-15 10:04       ` Marijn Schouten (hkBst)
2009-05-15 10:44         ` Daniel Pielmeier
2009-05-15 12:24           ` [gentoo-dev] " Duncan
2009-05-19 23:24             ` Mart Raudsepp
2009-05-15 10:25       ` [gentoo-dev] " Richard Freeman
2009-05-19 23:51         ` Mart Raudsepp
2009-05-20  0:55           ` [gentoo-dev] " Duncan
2009-06-01 23:17             ` Mart Raudsepp
2009-05-14  1:47 ` [gentoo-dev] " Jeremy Olexa
2009-05-14  5:41   ` [gentoo-dev] " Duncan
2009-05-14  5:54     ` Patrick Lauer
2009-05-14 12:49       ` Alexander Færøy
2009-05-14 14:13         ` Nirbheek Chauhan
2009-05-14  9:09   ` Christian Faulhammer
2009-05-14 10:12   ` [gentoo-dev] " Mart Raudsepp
2009-05-14 17:06     ` Thomas Sachau
2009-05-14  6:53 ` Pacho Ramos
2009-05-14 11:02 ` Markos Chandras
2009-05-14 14:23   ` Mart Raudsepp
2009-05-14 14:50     ` Richard Freeman
2009-05-19 23:54       ` Mart Raudsepp
2009-05-20 15:36         ` Richard Freeman
2009-06-01 21:19           ` Mart Raudsepp [this message]
2009-05-14 18:24 ` Roy Bamford
2009-05-14 18:48   ` Thomas Sachau
2009-05-17  9:00     ` Tobias Scherbaum
2009-05-19 23:35   ` Mart Raudsepp
2009-05-17 18:08 ` [gentoo-dev] " Ryan Hill
2009-05-19 23:42   ` Mart Raudsepp
2009-05-28  7:55 ` [gentoo-dev] " Peter Volkov
2009-06-01 21:24   ` Mart Raudsepp

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=1243891163.21933.5.camel@localhost \
    --to=leio@gentoo.org \
    --cc=gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox