From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org) by nuthatch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.54) id 1EvbCE-0002TQ-6B for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sun, 08 Jan 2006 14:06:58 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.5/8.13.5) with SMTP id k08E5bra017279; Sun, 8 Jan 2006 14:05:37 GMT Received: from cubert.e-centre.net (morbo.e-centre.net [66.154.82.3]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id k08E2EEW004050 for ; Sun, 8 Jan 2006 14:02:15 GMT Received: from [10.3.1.19] (helo=barracuda2.stayonline.net) by cubert.e-centre.net with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1Evb7Z-0003wI-Ng for gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org; Sun, 08 Jan 2006 09:02:11 -0500 X-ASG-Debug-ID: 1136728928-27909-8-0 X-Barracuda-URL: http://10.3.1.19:8000/cgi-bin/mark.cgi Received: from et-pdx-2.site.stayonline.net (unknown [65.200.64.131]) by barracuda2.stayonline.net (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP id 1D76CFAEE2 for ; Sun, 8 Jan 2006 09:02:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from nightcrawler ([172.16.1.202]) by et-pdx-2.site.stayonline.net (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id k08E1t5j026181 for ; Sun, 8 Jan 2006 14:01:55 GMT Date: Sun, 8 Jan 2006 06:01:29 -0800 From: Brian Harring To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org X-ASG-Orig-Subj: Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for January Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for January Message-ID: <20060108140129.GA16494@nightcrawler.e-centre.net> References: <200601011053.k01ArjOh019213@robin.gentoo.org> <200601080115.31137.carlo@gentoo.org> <200601081440.52311.carlo@gentoo.org> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="pf9I7BMVVzbSWLtt" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200601081440.52311.carlo@gentoo.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11 X-Virus-Scanned: by Barracuda Spam Firewall at stayonline.net X-Barracuda-Spam-Score: 0.00 X-Barracuda-Spam-Status: No, SCORE=0.00 using global scores of TAG_LEVEL=1000.0 QUARANTINE_LEVEL=1000.0 KILL_LEVEL=4.0 tests= X-Barracuda-Spam-Report: Code version 3.02, rules version 3.0.7067 Rule breakdown below pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- X-Archives-Salt: cc19bc6f-28d4-4c7f-9f89-4abb6bda1956 X-Archives-Hash: 93568fc1683be112c7f6c91e89fc9fa8 --pf9I7BMVVzbSWLtt Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sun, Jan 08, 2006 at 02:40:47PM +0100, Carsten Lohrke wrote: > On Sunday 08 January 2006 01:35, Stuart Herbert wrote: > > I agree that some cleaning is needed (and some of my packages are > > desperate for it!), but I'm totally opposed to this idea. I think the > > idea of shutting up shop for three months (presumably with a "closed > > for refurbishment" sign on the door) would let down our users who rely > > on us for regular package updates, and would be a massive PR disaster. > > Cleaning is something that has to happen all the time; it needs to be > > a natural and sustainable part of what we do every day. >=20 > As Donnie already pointed out, I did not mean version bumps, but only new= =20 > packages.=20 > How about this idea: Everyone who adds a new package, has to check=20 > and fix an unmaintained package before. Guessing you missed the previous flame war about how trying to force=20 people to do something doesn't actually work? > This should be a non-issue for=20 > seasoned developers,=20 You're assuming seasoned devs don't occasionally go MIA on=20 QA/maintenance? It's not the case... > but would slowdown those who continually add new=20 > packages [ snip vitriolic opinions ] If you've got an issue with devs adding stuff and abandoning/not=20 supporting their stuff, hey that's fine, bitch at QA. Don't go freezing the whole tree just because you're after slapping at=20 a couple of devs over perceived wrongs. > Don't you think that it is pretty much barefaced to let a small group do = the=20 > dirty, boring and annoying work, while those who don't care a bit can=20 > continue to do so?! If you've got an issue with certain devs (seems to be the case from=20 your statement), take it up with QA/ombudsman, not the loop=20 around attempt you're doing here. If you're after trying to decrease the unmaintained packages, like I=20 said, generate a list _from the tree_, compare it to bugs, etc. Do=20 the legwork, kick off the effort to cover the gap. Basically, you want to decrease bugs for unmaintained, decrease the=20 gap of maintained vs unmaintained, work on _that_ rather then trying=20 to force everyone to drop what they're doing and fix an issue they're=20 already working on at their own pace. Folks *are* handling retirement of unmaintained packages, and taking=20 on maintainance of packages already- just watch -dev for the=20 occasional announcements if you think otherwise. ~harring --pf9I7BMVVzbSWLtt Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFDwRs4vdBxRoA3VU0RAnHUAKDTzGc7/LLGfRh7yXWnB23LjJAz1ACfVHJV kTNLf92vISd42uLOBihKwrY= =Rlbj -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --pf9I7BMVVzbSWLtt-- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list