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

Re: Attempted summary and thoughts

On Tuesday 27 March 2007, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > If so, what action do you think should be taken in the case where those
> > bug reports are not addressed by the package maintainer?
> Someone should triage the bug and remove the tag if the patch isn't
> adequate.  An untriaged bug is an untriaged bug -- we don't really know
> *what's* in it.  Just because it has a patch tag doesn't mean it's
> necessarily any higher-quality of a bug unless it's been triaged.

It may not be higher quality, but it almost definately is higher effort.

Correspondingly the frustration on part of the bug/patch submitter when 
there's no response at all will be higher also.

> So I agree wholeheartedly with the idea that bug triage is important, but
> it doesn't always happen and that's why we're having this conversation. 
> I agree that one can infer from the existence of untriaged bugs that not
> all the package maintenance we want is happening.  But the one and only
> one solution to that is to get more people working on the package or make
> more time for the existing maintainers to work on the package

when a maintainer is completely ignoring bugs with patches, he's essentially 
ignoring people who are trying to help (or at least that's how the bug 
submitter is likely to interpret it).  

That's something the project should obviously discourage, doubly so on 
packages that need help.

> and orphaning the package does not magically accomplish this.

> I'm willing to support being more aggressive than we currently are about
> changing maintainers when someone else steps up and is willing to do the
> work, but I'm not willing to support any proposal that automatically
> orphans packages where there's no one waiting to work on it who is being
> blocked by the current maintainer.  I don't think that actually
> accomplishes anything useful.  We don't have to orphan the package to
> know that it's in trouble -- there are many other metrics that can be
> used for that.

instead of orphaning before there's a new maintainer, maybe we need a 
"needs co-maintainer" or "may be hijacked" tag? 
Cheers, cobaco (aka Bart Cornelis)

Attachment: pgpVgmDrrnZic.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: