On Sun, Aug 06, 2000 at 03:05:34PM +0200, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
> >> Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> writes:
> > > > Why should this be anything more than a normal bug?
> > > Because they are not being actively maintained.
> > So? Release critical bugs mean we a package is unsuitable for
> > release. It doesn't mean "hey, this is important, look at it!".
> Ok, I see your point. Basically the question is if an orphaned
> package is unsuitable for release. IMO, the answer in the generic
> case is yes. Again, iff the package is in good condition, then I
> think it's ok to release it like that. If the package has some
> ammount of bugs or is important, I don't think it's reasonable to
> release it like that. In any case, either downgrade or ignore the
> bug.
Well, what exactly does "in good condition" mean? Presumably an RC bug
is enough to mean it's not in good condition. What else might mean that?
I think the best definition of this is just to say "if the bugs are
annoying enough that someone's bothered to fix it, then it wasn't in
good condition before".
But if they're fixed now, there's no problem. And if they're not annoying
enough to inspire anyone to fix them, and assuming the package is still
usable (ie, doesn't have an RC bugs), then why shouldn't we release with
it?
The thing with standard (and above) packages isn't so much that they're
more important, it's that their bugs will annoy more people, so it's more
likely someone will step in to fix them.
> JFTR, this is how orphaning packages works right now (or how it's
> supposed to work right now):
> http://qa.debian.org/documentation/qa.html/ch-rules.html
Okay, so (as I read it) that basically means set the priority to
"important" for packages in optional/extra after a month or two to get
the ftp admins to move them into project/orphaned, and then lower them
again (to wishlist or so, I guess).
ie:
important:
optional/extra packages unmaintained for a month (fix ==
move them to project/oprhaned, and downgrade to wishlist)
normal:
standard or above packages unmaintained for a few
months (change priority; or find a maintainer)
optional/extra packages newly orphaned (upgrade to
important and mark for removal after a couple of months)
wishlist:
ITPs, RFPs, Withdrawn
> > Again, I fail to see the real difference between ITO and WTO. Okay,
> > one has a time limit, and the other doesn't. So the former *will*
> > take two weeks, and the latter might only take one.
> This one seems to be a problem of how to name this. It's a plain old
> 'Up for adoption'/'Looking for new maintanier'. "I don't want do
> orphan it, I just want someone else to maintain it because I'm not
> using this anymore but I think it's useful for other people or
> whatever." What do I call that?
Well, combine them and call it "Up For Adoption", or something. Or
"Request for Adoption" maybe, to match RFP. So you have:
wishlist:
ITP, RFP, RFA, W
> > > > A lot of this stuff should probably be automated. When a package
> > > > gets installed in unstable, any appropriate RFP/ITP's don't have
> > > > any reason to be open anymore.
> > > That's exactly the idea. This happens if the maintainer uses
> > > 'Closes:' properly. Also valid for ITAs.
> > That's not automatic :)
> Then I misunderstood what you meant by automatic.
When I say "automatic", I just mean people don't have to do anything to
ensure the wnpp database is up to date. So if you're packaging the program
for your own reasons, and didn't even know someone else had RFP'ed it,
then you don't have to worry, you can just be sure some other system
somewhere will take care of it for you.
> Downgrading/retitling from O: to W: (or similar) should also happen
> automatically. project/orphaned is not the happiest of the places,
> but I guess I can do that, too.
You could just treat "W:" as being not in the archive, rather than being
in project/orphaned. So if the package just disappears, without even being
put in project/orphaned it's still marked "W:". Dunno if that's good or
bad.
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.
``We reject: kings, presidents, and voting.
We believe in: rough consensus and working code.''
-- Dave Clark
Attachment:
pgplbcPsFrKmQ.pgp
Description: PGP signature