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

Re: Work-needing packages report for Sep 6, 2002

On Wed, 11 Sep 2002 16:55, Tomas Pospisek's Mailing Lists wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Sep 2002, Colin Watson wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 11, 2002 at 03:18:38PM +0200, tomas p wrote:
> > > I understand. Which brings me back to the proposition I made before.
> > > Wouldn't it be better to just have some kind of way to _tag_
> > > unmaintained packages, so that f.ex. QA can look at the package and
> > > then just decide: "this is not an important package, we'll not bother
> > > with it" and leave in unstable without paying any more attention to
> > > it. Similary for Junichi Uekawa who could just say: "I'm not building
> > > unmaintained packages".
> >
> > I think we're trying to build a quality distribution, not just a pile of
> > stuff. I'd rather see a package be removed than stop maintaining it even
> > in QA.
> So you'd remove the package, even if people are using it and are that far
> happy with it?

The hypothetical example was given of a package not needing any changes for a 
period of 6 years.  If a package was useful and didn't need maintaining then 
some developer would probably adopt it and forget it.

I expect that I'm not the only developer who can't even remember the list of 
packages they maintain.  Some packages don't have any new versions or any bug 
reports so I just forget them until someone reports a bug.

Why is this so difficult?

I do not get viruses because I do not use MS software.
If you use Outlook then please do not put my email address in your
address-book so that WHEN you get a virus it won't use my address in the
>From field.

Reply to: