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 <gentoo-dev+bounces-45040-garchives=archives.gentoo.org@lists.gentoo.org>)
id 1Q3wQJ-0002N3-Ea
for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sun, 27 Mar 2011 20:18:55 +0000
Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 2CA401C117;
Sun, 27 Mar 2011 20:18:42 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mail-iy0-f181.google.com (mail-iy0-f181.google.com [209.85.210.181])
by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA5571C10B
for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Sun, 27 Mar 2011 20:17:11 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by iyb26 with SMTP id 26so3789402iyb.40
for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Sun, 27 Mar 2011 13:17:11 -0700 (PDT)
Precedence: bulk
List-Post: <mailto:gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gentoo-dev+help@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+unsubscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+subscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail <gentoo-dev.gentoo.org>
X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.42.221.196 with SMTP id id4mr4856235icb.141.1301257031270;
Sun, 27 Mar 2011 13:17:11 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: antarus@scriptkitty.com
Received: by 10.42.228.73 with HTTP; Sun, 27 Mar 2011 13:17:11 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTikxAMHSBuxPTeDv0XOr9P_fiKhtOnAad6CWNzeV@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20110326055210.E906D20054@flycatcher.gentoo.org>
<4D8EC104.4090503@gentoo.org>
<AANLkTik=cLPnD5Y7akyM0xsPgOC7+cvVOh=bj1Opir_y@mail.gmail.com>
<4D8F3BE8.5050300@gentoo.org>
<AANLkTikrbqVO6y-Pym+gEpGbEJYtRZmH8JnbpWcY+k5n@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTimoW4QOtSVNVKZZurp9XaSRaQApD9QEUxafxw=m@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTikxAMHSBuxPTeDv0XOr9P_fiKhtOnAad6CWNzeV@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2011 20:17:11 +0000
X-Google-Sender-Auth: ldGOOEqkf4R99_QoWy8SwACWrI8
Message-ID: <AANLkTimzBbzsdDYEUKx9pWNo-a-HS8D+tMEygos00qWC@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in
dev-python/PyZilla: PyZilla-0.1.0.ebuild ChangeLog metadata.xml
From: Alec Warner <antarus@gentoo.org>
To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
Cc: Nirbheek Chauhan <nirbheek@gentoo.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Archives-Salt:
X-Archives-Hash: a21f860fc22c8f56bed545a3032522d2
On Sun, Mar 27, 2011 at 7:40 PM, Nirbheek Chauhan <nirbheek@gentoo.org> wro=
te:
> 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.
>> =C2=A0For a while beandog essentially maintained a site that tracked thi=
s
>> 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. =C2=A0Time 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 =E2=80=94 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 c=
rap.
>
> 1. Writer is bad at statistics, this is probably inaccurate.
>
> --
> ~Nirbheek Chauhan
>
> Gentoo GNOME+Mozilla Team
>
>