From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D85958973 for ; Sun, 24 Jan 2016 09:06:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id B493D21C01A; Sun, 24 Jan 2016 09:06:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: from icp-osb-irony-out7.external.iinet.net.au (icp-osb-irony-out7.external.iinet.net.au [203.59.1.107]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 033C721C00A for ; Sun, 24 Jan 2016 09:06:08 +0000 (UTC) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A2EMBwAYk6RW/1yp/dxeGQEBAQEHAQgBAgIBAwEBAQGDAFJtgmWFcrN5JIVrAoEbTAEBAQEBAQSBB0ESAYNtAQEBAQIBI1sLCw0LAgIFIQICD0gZFAeHeAcPrW2GIYg7GgR7iiSFF4I1gToFjh2IWYVGgnIFhRCBZ4dfhTyKbINTYoN2Ly6CQ4R5AQEB X-IPAS-Result: A2EMBwAYk6RW/1yp/dxeGQEBAQEHAQgBAgIBAwEBAQGDAFJtgmWFcrN5JIVrAoEbTAEBAQEBAQSBB0ESAYNtAQEBAQIBI1sLCw0LAgIFIQICD0gZFAeHeAcPrW2GIYg7GgR7iiSFF4I1gToFjh2IWYVGgnIFhRCBZ4dfhTyKbINTYoN2Ly6CQ4R5AQEB X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.22,339,1449504000"; d="scan'208";a="709972023" Received: from unknown (HELO archtester.homenetwork) ([220.253.169.92]) by icp-osb-irony-out7.iinet.net.au with ESMTP; 24 Jan 2016 17:05:52 +0800 Date: Sun, 24 Jan 2016 17:05:47 +0800 From: Ian Delaney To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFD] Adopt-a-package, proxy-maintenance, and other musings Message-ID: <20160124170547.4d12fd29@archtester.homenetwork> In-Reply-To: <20160122120407.428ef591@gentoo.org> References: <20160121165358.GA18561@whubbs1.gaikai.biz> <20160121184520.6d472d7a.mgorny@gentoo.org> <20160122120407.428ef591@gentoo.org> Organization: homenetwork X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.13.0 (GTK+ 2.24.28; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) 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 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Archives-Salt: 6bc91092-90ae-4b09-b447-10a3edd55aac X-Archives-Hash: 8a42639348cb733a094699d690734360 On Fri, 22 Jan 2016 12:04:07 +0100 Alexis Ballier wrote: > On Thu, 21 Jan 2016 18:45:20 +0100 > Micha=C5=82 G=C3=B3rny wrote: >=20 > > If I see a package that clearly doesn't build or otherwise simply > > doesn't work, could not have worked for past 3 years, are you > > forcing me to waste a time reporting a bug to no maintainer who > > could fix it? =20 >=20 > sure, don't waste your time and just delete it so that nobody can > track why it was removed or even attempt to fix it. >=20 > > Because to me, the lack of any open bugs is a clear evidence that > > the package is not only unmaintained, but also unused. =20 >=20 >=20 > lack of open bug means there is no known bug; anything else is pure > supposition >=20 >=20 >=20 > if you see a package that "could not have worked for past 3 years", > you open a bug, cc treecleaners or lastrite it yourself, and it will > be quickly gone >=20 and on it goes. In the above we see a common theme. The emphasis on the wasting of time over an absurd task because it is so obviously absurd. Except, wait, it isn't so absurd because ....... This kind of leaping to a final conclusion and declaring an assessment of it on a knee jerk type interpretation is all too common. Frankly I find it difficult to fathom how this constant trail of such premature evaluations has its source from gentoo developer community; I.T. professional folk who by rights excel in objective analysis of the data at hand and routinely arrive at technical solutions to cover a minimal required set of conditions. Or is there something wrong in my suppositions there regarding the precursors? Either way; see=20 https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Proxy_Maintainers/Maintainer_Wanted last edited between myself and kensington cs 24-01 this year. The important content, obviously, are the Criteria for closing a report. --=20 kind regards Ian Delaney