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 1Q3qHU-0003CN-8O for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sun, 27 Mar 2011 13:45:24 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 362F91C01A; Sun, 27 Mar 2011 13:45:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-ww0-f53.google.com (mail-ww0-f53.google.com [74.125.82.53]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 747551C04A for ; Sun, 27 Mar 2011 13:44:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-ww0-f53.google.com with SMTP id 40so2722650wwj.10 for ; Sun, 27 Mar 2011 06:44:22 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=oxQEoqT/MYBJmhGV/XvYKOQ0OdEQL4b7OJSBy35kkDM=; b=soN074jBBrYwlrjBbV2oLC+ig4Lsw8BuJGw6OEO1UDS/P1lwI3FDG4q+a+bDXiOG0x ufMsRuX1npnJ+TdrwoEijmXQseSYLVS4gyfRA7NuOJNLTzN0Uf31C+iKibcOQLHGpLZ8 Txf17zNXaFlWMWLz75LXH3SfYZt8+m/qYiIkQ= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; b=Rb167kGgzvVKL6V4F8w9XBclMYTsuUEBw1DoCXdkrhBlmWabCcmxizvOt0+WCB1ZuW qC6xK38CCDW1DEjIw1q9DcLvY2U5aVzvB8ssVzkYHrWwOC/xHDcjBtJqs4iGxA1jOxQr xyKedvDZ+cET3e425EUwhBghysDIwKxcmP8yA= 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 Received: by 10.227.204.195 with SMTP id fn3mr2825548wbb.36.1301233461902; Sun, 27 Mar 2011 06:44:21 -0700 (PDT) Sender: freemanrich@gmail.com Received: by 10.227.147.82 with HTTP; Sun, 27 Mar 2011 06:44:21 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <4D8F3BE8.5050300@gentoo.org> References: <20110326055210.E906D20054@flycatcher.gentoo.org> <4D8EC104.4090503@gentoo.org> <4D8F3BE8.5050300@gentoo.org> Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2011 09:44:21 -0400 X-Google-Sender-Auth: 4hE_4sEeoZa0zEpYRqn8XwzazgA Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in dev-python/PyZilla: PyZilla-0.1.0.ebuild ChangeLog metadata.xml From: Rich Freeman To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Cc: Jeremy Olexa Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Archives-Salt: X-Archives-Hash: 12c97b07055c50ff0be17d99af3cfb2a On Sun, Mar 27, 2011 at 9:30 AM, Jeremy Olexa wrote: > On 03/27/2011 02:47 AM, Nirbheek Chauhan wrote: >>> On 03/26/2011 12:52 AM, Mike Frysinger (vapier) wrote: >> I propose that we should be more aggressive about package.masking (for >> removal) all maintainer-needed packages from the tree by doing that >> one month after they become maintainer-needed. If someone doesn't >> volunteer to take care of it, it probably wasn't important anyway. >> > > That is abit extreme for me (read: I don't have motivation to fight the > flames), but I wouldn't complain if someone else did it to be honest. > So, I'd like to propose that somewhere between adding stuff to the tree that nobody has any intent to look after, and removing stuff that has been around a long time with no clear problems, there is a happy medium. How about this - if you add a package to the tree, you are responsible for it for at least a year. If you can get somebody else to take it then that is fine. If it has problems QA can flame you (privately at first) for it, and you should feel appropriately embarrassed and fix it, or remove it. After a year, it can go maintainer-needed. Before a year, it cannot, and you either need to actually maintain it, or remove it. Developers should not be adding packages they have no interest in whatsoever, or that have so many QA issues initially that they're high-maintenance right from the start. If a dev gets a package from a proxy-maintainer and they disappear then they can nurse it along or remove it as makes sense - we should be nice to these devs but we shouldn't just cut the packages loose. Packages that are maintainer-needed stay around as long as they're not making trouble. If they get lots of complaints they get announced on -dev, and after two weeks they get masked if not picked up. If they end up blocking something then likewise they get announced and then masked. That basically is the current practice anyway. I don't see a need to remove m-n packages wholesale just to say that we did it, or to punish users for not becoming devs or whatever. And of course, the usual long-term solutions like making proxy-maintaining easier should be pursued. Rich