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 59B7A58973 for ; Tue, 19 Jan 2016 22:56:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 72BCB21C03E; Tue, 19 Jan 2016 22:56:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 70B1321C025 for ; Tue, 19 Jan 2016 22:56:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: from android-1ca29584792d37d0.home.adambfeldman.com (ool-457bb23b.dyn.optonline.net [69.123.178.59]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: NP-Hardass) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7956F34016B; Tue, 19 Jan 2016 22:56:07 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: K-9 Mail for Android In-Reply-To: <20160119235127.7af7ebcf.mgorny@gentoo.org> References: <569DCD51.6000501@gentoo.org> <20160119235127.7af7ebcf.mgorny@gentoo.org> 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: multipart/alternative; boundary="----E4GF0C06QHRP33J1HHT4FFHEYDKEFG" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFD] Adopt-a-package, proxy-maintenance, and other musings From: NP-Hardass Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2016 17:55:57 -0500 To: =?UTF-8?Q?Micha=C5=82_G=C3=B3rny?= CC: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org,proxy-maint@gentoo.org Message-ID: X-Archives-Salt: 67608a43-d8c9-431f-b007-01011a379ebd X-Archives-Hash: caf74ae710a1f016ed949a0e431a867a ------E4GF0C06QHRP33J1HHT4FFHEYDKEFG Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 I'm not claiming that this is a new problem or that it will be orders of magnitude worse. Merely that it brings the issue back into the forefront and that we could benefit from official policies and (in some cases renewed) efforts to reduce their impact. An official policy/action is not likely to make an impact than an ad hoc, unofficial one, IMO. On January 19, 2016 5:51:27 PM EST, "Michał Górny" wrote: >On Tue, 19 Jan 2016 00:44:49 -0500 >NP-Hardass wrote: > >> With all of the unclaimed herds and unclaimed packages within them, I >> started to wonder what will happen after the GLEP 67 transition >> finally comes to fruition. This left me with some concerns and I was >> wondering what the community thinks about them, and some possible >> solutions. >> >> There is a large number of packages from unclaimed herds that, at >this >> time, look like they will not be claimed by developers. This will >> likely result in a huge increase in maintainer-needed packages (and >> subsequent package rot). This isn't to say that some of these >> packages weren't previously in a "maintainer-needed" like state, but >> now, they will explicitly be there. > >Oh, and just to be clear, this isn't going to be some kind of huge >growth. Right now I can count 380 new maintainer-needed packages, from >which some will most likely be mapped. I would estimate the final >outcome to around 300 packages, maybe less. > >Now compare that to the current 1212 maintainer-needed packages. > >-- >Best regards, >Michał Górny > -- NP-Hardass ------E4GF0C06QHRP33J1HHT4FFHEYDKEFG Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit I'm not claiming that this is a new problem or that it will be orders of magnitude worse. Merely that it brings the issue back into the forefront and that we could benefit from official policies and (in some cases renewed) efforts to reduce their impact. An official policy/action is not likely to make an impact than an ad hoc, unofficial one, IMO.

On January 19, 2016 5:51:27 PM EST, "Michał Górny" <mgorny@gentoo.org> wrote:
On Tue, 19 Jan 2016 00:44:49 -0500
NP-Hardass <NP-Hardass@gentoo.org> wrote:

 With all of the unclaimed herds and unclaimed packages within them, I
 started to wonder what will happen after the GLEP 67 transition
 finally comes to fruition.  This left me with some concerns and I was
 wondering what the community thinks about them, and some possible
 solutions.
 
 There is a large number of packages from unclaimed herds that, at this
 time, look like they will not be claimed by developers.  This will
 likely result in a huge increase in maintainer-needed packages (and
 subsequent package rot).  This isn't to say that some of these
 packages weren't previously in a "maintainer-needed" like state, but
 now, they will explicitly be there.

Oh, and just
to be clear, this isn't going to be some kind of huge
growth. Right now I can count 380 new maintainer-needed packages, from
which some will most likely be mapped. I would estimate the final
outcome to around 300 packages, maybe less.

Now compare that to the current 1212 maintainer-needed packages.

--
NP-Hardass ------E4GF0C06QHRP33J1HHT4FFHEYDKEFG--