Re: Attempted summary and thoughts
Nathanael Nerode <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> Actually, after describing the worst-case scenario, I am going to make a
> new tentative proposal:
> If a package has a bug with a *patch* attached, where the *patch* has
> not been reviewed on by the maintainer(s) within six months, the package
> will be orphaned immediately; the maintainer will not be allowed to
> adopt it for at least a year, though he may comaintain and make uploads.
> (This should give a more accurate reflection of the real state of the
> package and make other people feel more free to fix the package.)
I don't think this is reasonable. I think you have to at least take into
account the size of the patch and the severity of the problem, from the
triage side. Massive rewrites at wishlist priority aren't necessarily the
best use of anyone's time. And, more importantly on the maintainer side,
you need to take into account whether orphaning the package actually
If no one has time to work on a package, orphaning the package doesn't
make it better. Not all packages can be removed. For some, we just have
to stagger on as best we can until someone shows up with free time to
really tackle package maintenance.
If that person has showed up and is being blocked from helping for some
reason, *then* we can talk.
> The number of *patched* bugs is a lot smaller than the number of bugs
> total. It is also *far* more frustrating to have a patched bug ignored
> than to have an unpatched bug ignored. Also, analyzing them is far more
> likely to give quick package improvements than analyzing other bugs.
A lot of the bugs tagged patch really just need to have the patch tag
removed. The presence of a proposed patch in the bug doesn't mean that
the bug should have the patch tag.
Russ Allbery (email@example.com) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>