Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in dev-python/PyZilla: PyZilla-0.1.0.ebuild ChangeLog metadata.xml

[Alec Warner <antarus@gentoo.org>]

On Sun, Mar 27, 2011 at 7:40 PM, Nirbheek Chauhan <nirbheek@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 12:47 AM, Alec Warner <antarus@gentoo.org> wrote:
>> On Sun, Mar 27, 2011 at 1:43 PM, Nirbheek Chauhan <nirbheek@gentoo.org> wrote:
>>> Just start removing old[1] maintainer-needed packages. If people
>>> complain, tell them to start maintaining it. If they continue to
>>> complain, ignore them. As tree-cleaner, you have the power to do this
>>> and not take bullshit from people about it.
>>
>> The intent of the TreeCleaner project (years ago) was to essentially
>> look for packages in bugzilla that had lots of bugs and no maintainer.
>>  For a while beandog essentially maintained a site that tracked this
>> for us (Gentoo Package that need Lovin' was the awesome title.)
>>
>> From that list you either fixed the problems and commited them (e.g.
>> you were a roving package maintainer) or you pmasked it and marked it
>> for the deadpool.
>>
>> There is not much policy on treecleaning a package just because no one
>> has touched it.  Time since last touch was just one of a dozen
>> indicators used to find packages that are broken (because a package
>> not touched since 2006 is also not likely to compile.)
>>
>
> Sure, that's the history. But what made sense back then doesn't make
> sense now. Back then we didn't have 600+ packages that no one
> maintains, and whose bugs go almost entirely unread. We had crazy
> amounts of manpower back then.

We probably had more than 600 unmaintained packages because no one was
removing dead packages from the tree.  I also dispute your manpower
logic.  Gentoo has been short on developers for years.  I don't see
how 2011 is any different than 2007 in this aspect.

>
> As we evolve, the responsibilities of the different parts of Gentoo
> also evolve. As such, the tree-cleaners project has evolved, and if
> the team isn't allowed to clean the tree, then why do we even have it
> anymore?

The community got pissed when I deleted unmaintained packages from the
tree 'just because it was unmaintained.'  Thats why there were a set
of criteria for removal.  Maybe they changed their mind and you can
convince them.  Ignoring people's opinions because they are whiners
and you are Treecleaners is a thin edge to walk though; so I'd be
careful.  At least during my tenure there were still hundreds of
unmaintained and broken packages; so I didn't much care about
unmaintained but working stuff (since there was plenty of work to do.)
 I would argue the tree is still in a similar state.

>
> I really don't understand *why* people want to keep around
> unmaintained packages. If a package is not maintained, we should come
> up and say it outright. Trying to maintain the illusion of maintenance
> is really bad — for each person reporting a bug about a package, 100
> people who got that same bug don't report it at all. So what happens
> when there are just 50 users for some packages? Half the time we won't
> even know that one of them is broken[1]. The rest of the time, users
> will get a bad impression of Gentoo saying "Man, half the packages
> don't even work".

Properly tagged I don't think there is any illusion.
Maintainer-needed is maintainer-needed after all.  If half of the
packages *in the tree* don't work then we have a problem.  If half the
packages *a user tries to install* are broken then they should
certainly use another distro.  Perhaps Gentoo is not for their area
(and the key point is that it doesn't have to be.)

>
> It's really simple:
>
> (a) If the package has plenty of users, there should be no problems
> finding a maintainer or a proxy-maintainer.
> (b) If the package has few users and is high-maintenance, it's either
> already broken, or will get broken soon without a maintainer. Find one
> or remove it!
> (c) If the package has few users and is low-maintenance, package.mask
> it so we can figure out who the users are, and we can get them to
> proxy-maintain it, it's so little work anyway, right?
> (d) If the package has very few or no users, what the hell is it doing
> unmaintained in the tree? It's just eating up disk inodes and space.

So launch gstats and get usage numbers.  If no one is using a package
that is a keen indicator it can be punted; however no one will get off
their ass and get more data to back anything up (myself included...)
All of your points above assume we have a decent metric of 'how many
users a package has' and about the only way we know that is when users
file bugs for it (version bump, bug, feature req, etc..)

>
> We all like to boast about how gentoo has 15,000 packages, but we
> neglect to mention that more than 1000 of these are either
> unmaintained or very poorly maintained. And this is a very
> conservative number.

But again this is all made up...m-n was 670-odd packages last I
checked.  Do we still have m-w these days?

>
> Let's not turn portage into a graveyard for packages. Let's just remove crap.
>
> 1. Writer is bad at statistics, this is probably inaccurate.
>
> --
> ~Nirbheek Chauhan
>
> Gentoo GNOME+Mozilla Team
>
>