From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1MBEtX-00051M-Kf for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Mon, 01 Jun 2009 21:18:11 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 1E21CE0359; Mon, 1 Jun 2009 21:18:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp-out.neti.ee (smtp-out.neti.ee [194.126.126.44]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD7E3E0359 for ; Mon, 1 Jun 2009 21:18:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by MXR-13.estpak.ee (Postfix) with ESMTP id B171757BBE for ; Tue, 2 Jun 2009 00:18:06 +0300 (EEST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at !change-mydomain-variable!.example.com Received: from smtp-out.neti.ee ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (MXR-1.estpak.ee [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PEzRVB4j-i9h for ; Tue, 2 Jun 2009 00:18:06 +0300 (EEST) Received: from Relayhost2.neti.ee (Relayhost2 [88.196.174.142]) by MXR-13.estpak.ee (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E04E57B6A for ; Tue, 2 Jun 2009 00:18:06 +0300 (EEST) X-SMTP-Auth-NETI-Businesmail: no Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Project proposal -- maintainer-wanted From: Mart Raudsepp To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org In-Reply-To: <4A142367.5030903@gentoo.org> References: <1242261133.23088.82.camel@localhost> <200905141402.40992.hwoarang@gentoo.org> <1242311038.22615.17.camel@localhost> <4A0C2FAB.2070603@gentoo.org> <1242777263.30374.34.camel@localhost> <4A142367.5030903@gentoo.org> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-Dwaj+59x0iq29GvYCXZU" Date: Tue, 02 Jun 2009 00:19:23 +0300 Message-Id: <1243891163.21933.5.camel@localhost> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.22.0 X-Archives-Salt: 539d7377-c27c-48ba-a260-fbe459e6de1c X-Archives-Hash: 3b66afb0809971bebc7c8d2dad514c5a --=-Dwaj+59x0iq29GvYCXZU Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On K, 2009-05-20 at 11:36 -0400, Richard Freeman wrote: > Mart Raudsepp wrote: > >=20 > > 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. > >=20 >=20 > Ok, I think I see where you're coming from. Essentially=20 > maintainer-wanted is a group for people who want to collectively manage=20 > ebuilds that don't otherwise fall into any particular project/herd.=20 > Almost like a "misc" herd. >=20 > If the packages are actually being maintained then I have no issues at=20 > all with the proposal - in fact I'd endorse it (for what little that is=20 > worth). However "maintainer-wanted" seems like a bit of a misnomer -=20 > these ebuilds would in fact have a maintainer. Perhaps another name=20 > could be used so that it is easy to distinguish between: >=20 > 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=20 > would love to see adopted into another herd/project. > 4. Packages that are part of a more dedicated project/herd, or which=20 > have attention from one or more particular developers. >=20 > I don't question the value in having group #3 which I think is what=20 > you're proposing. But, perhaps it should have a specific name/alias so=20 > that we can tell that a package belongs to it. Your proposed team could=20 > scour #1/2 for new builds, and bump builds in #3 back to #2 if=20 > necessary. Treecleaners would prune #2 and ignore #3. Of course,=20 > 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 --=20 Mart Raudsepp Gentoo Developer Mail: leio@gentoo.org Weblog: http://planet.gentoo.org/developers/leio --=-Dwaj+59x0iq29GvYCXZU Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.8 (GNU/Linux) iEYEABECAAYFAkokRdsACgkQkeYb6olFHJeQIgCgx7BtT/5Nkdy1r0SjDCfTWyTM AgwAnA38kx2KoXNCUhh7j/j7yHCapF0s =ug7Y -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-Dwaj+59x0iq29GvYCXZU--