[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: General reminder, Re: RFS: Orphaned Packages ladder.app, lapispuzzle.app, quake2-data, scottfree

Gerfried Fuchs wrote:

 I removed the In-Reply-To header on intention and broke threading
through it, please read below why I've chosen to do so.

* Gerfried Fuchs <rhonda@deb.at> [2008-01-17 21:37:45 CET]:
 Those not. Ladder doesn't have anything useful in the about menu (just
empty entries), it looks a bit fishy to me. I spoke with Barry about it
and we might reconsider addiing this to our team pool.

 LapisPuzzle doesn't seem to be controlable at all currently, I objected
to add such a thing to our pool. Either this will get fixed (maybe with
upstream's help) or there is no real place for it in our pool).

I spoke to the "upstream author" last night and they have no interest in these. I also tried the current versions and they have the same issues so it is not a regression. I'm happy to try to keep these up to date with regards to packaging and such but in my mind a better idea might be to remove them. However, every time I mention removal (i.e. scottfree, quake2, etc, etc) I get resistance. Both packages have popcons of around 230. I realize that the ideal is to have a maintainer that is directly "interested" but is it better to leave them orphaned?

 More generally spoken (and this is by far not limited to Barry, not at
all): Please don't add things to the pool if you aren't personally
interested in the things. Having packages in the games team doesn't
automatically mean that someone will take a look at it. If you add
something it is up to you to see that it is getting the required
attention, at least for a fair bit of time. It is quite possible that
others might jump on board and get interested too, but you shouldn't
depend on others to jump in to help you out.

Anything I bring in I will look at to the best of my abilities. I guess where it gets a little muddy is that I'm not some uber hacker.

 If you don't have the time for looking at a package properly then
adding it into our pool and letting it rot there isn't really helping
the users. I know that it's always a tough decision to have something
removed, but some times this is the better idea than to leave users in
the impression that something still gets its proper attention it

Then please speak up when I mention removals and people start whining.. :-)

 Maybe some sort of rule of thumb: If you don't even remotely think
about using the package at least once a month, just don't put it in. We
currently have 239 outstanding bug reports, only a small spot of them
are forwarded or pending, though a lot of them are minor and wishlist
items, but nevertheless they should get addressed, too.

Well a lot of them would be fixed if we could get uploads or if I could get some help with a couple of the packages I'm struggling with. foobillard alone closes 5 or 6 bugs I think.

 So long,

Thanks for your time!!

Barry deFreese

Reply to: