Re: Attempted summary and thoughts
Russ Allbery <email@example.com> writes:
> If no one has time to work on a package, orphaning the package
> doesn't make it better.
In that case, orphaning the package doesn't make it better.
I think Nathaniel was describing the case where people *do* have the
time, and indeed are proposing fixes to bugs, but those fixes are not
addressed by the current package maintainer.
> If that person has showed up and is being blocked from helping for
> some reason, *then* we can talk.
I think that's what the proposal is suggesting. Do you think the
metric used is bad, or is there some other flaw?
> 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.
I presume you're referring to the definition of the 'patch' tag:
A patch or some other easy procedure for fixing the bug is
included in the bug logs. If there's a patch, but it doesn't
resolve the bug adequately or causes some other problems, this tag
should not be used.
Are you implying that the bug reports tagged 'patch' that you're
talking about -- lots of them -- "don't resolve the bug adequately or
cause some other problem"?
If so, what action do you think should be taken in the case where
those bug reports are not addressed by the package maintainer?
\ "If you're a cowboy and you're dragging a guy behind your |
`\ horse, I bet it would really make you mad if you looked back |
_o__) and the guy was reading a magazine." -- Jack Handey |