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 1Evbx0-0006FE-5D for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sun, 08 Jan 2006 14:55:18 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.5/8.13.5) with SMTP id k08Es2UQ029817; Sun, 8 Jan 2006 14:54:02 GMT Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [134.68.220.30]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id k08EnueB023922 for ; Sun, 8 Jan 2006 14:49:56 GMT Received: from d226222.adsl.hansenet.de ([80.171.226.222] helo=iglu.bnet.local) by smtp.gentoo.org with esmtpa (Exim 4.54) id 1Evbrn-00079C-Vj for gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org; Sun, 08 Jan 2006 14:49:56 +0000 From: Carsten Lohrke To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for January Date: Sun, 8 Jan 2006 15:49:47 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.9 References: <200601011053.k01ArjOh019213@robin.gentoo.org> <200601081440.52311.carlo@gentoo.org> <20060108140129.GA16494@nightcrawler.e-centre.net> In-Reply-To: <20060108140129.GA16494@nightcrawler.e-centre.net> 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; boundary="nextPart11053189.8SIfDM477J"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200601081549.53764.carlo@gentoo.org> X-Archives-Salt: fb699ee8-1238-49fe-9914-369a45975cc2 X-Archives-Hash: 84f04ecb04f5c99af69472374faa372d --nextPart11053189.8SIfDM477J Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline On Sunday 08 January 2006 15:01, Brian Harring wrote: > Guessing you missed the previous flame war about how trying to force > people to do something doesn't actually work? When it's not common sense, that every dev is supposed to do a minimal on=20 general QA, Gentoo has a problem. > You're assuming seasoned devs don't occasionally go MIA on > QA/maintenance? It's not the case... I did not assume anything, I propose better QA. > > but would slowdown those who continually add new > > packages [ snip vitriolic opinions ] Thanks for calling something a vitriolic opinion, I did notice a few times,= so=20 it's a description of what's happening, but does not imply the majority of= =20 devs do so. > If you've got an issue with certain devs (seems to be the case from > your statement), take it up with QA/ombudsman, not the loop > around attempt you're doing here. > > If you're after trying to decrease the unmaintained packages, like I > said, generate a list _from the tree_, compare it to bugs, etc. Do > the legwork, kick off the effort to cover the gap. > > Basically, you want to decrease bugs for unmaintained, decrease the > gap of maintained vs unmaintained, work on _that_ rather then trying > to force everyone to drop what they're doing and fix an issue they're > already working on at their own pace. > > Folks *are* handling retirement of unmaintained packages, and taking > on maintainance of packages already- just watch -dev for the > occasional announcements if you think otherwise. To answer this paragraph in a short sentence: No, it doesn't work at the=20 moment, and yes I'd like everyone would be urged to care a bit more, not=20 leaving the legwork to a single person or small group, accepting that devs= =20 can feel as irresponsible as they like. Carsten --nextPart11053189.8SIfDM477J Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2-ecc0.1.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQBDwSaRVwbzmvGLSW8RAkJ4AJsEFRcfPnTOghtzgj+Ybr56ZjUVSQCeM13X hiuuWp0WIFuGP0drA3uxUZQ= =v1g8 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --nextPart11053189.8SIfDM477J-- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list