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

Re: Hijacking^W^W^W^W^W^WSalvaging packages for fun and profit: A proposal


On Fri, 28 Sep 2012 18:48:22 +0200
Arno Töll <arno@debian.org> wrote:

> Salvaging a package
> =================
> Salvaging is the process by which, one attempts to save a package from a
> state where it is poorly maintained or appears not maintained at all,
> without being officially orphaned. This is a weaker and faster procedure
> than orphaning a package officially through powers of the MIA team [4].
> Salvaging a package is not meant to replace MIA handling, and in
> contrast to it, it does not comment about the overall activity of a
> maintainer. Instead, it handles a package maintainer transition for a
> single package only, leaving any other package or Debian membership or
> upload rights (when applicable) untouched. However, during the salvage
> process, the MIA team will be informed (see below). This might be
> considered by them as a kick-off to start the MIA procedure as well.
> That's a desired side effect when found beneficial by MIA team members.
> Reasons to salvage a package
> ----------------------------------------
> The package is in clear need of some love and care, i.e. there are open
> bugs,  missing upstream releases, or there is work needed from a
> quality-assurance perspective; AND there is the need to upload the
> package to deal with these  issues; AND at least one of these criterias
> applies:
> * There is no visible activity regarding the package [5] for /six months/.
> * There is no visible activity regarding the package [5], and the
> maintainer of the package in question is tracked in the MIA database
> already, and there was no recorded activity in the MIA tracker for
> /three months/.
> * A previous NMU was not acknowledged, and at least another issue
> justifying another NMU is pending for /one month/ [5].
> * The last upload was an NMU and there was no maintainer upload within
> /one year/.
> * The package blocks a sourceful transition or the implementation of a
> release goal for /six months/ after a transition or release goal bug was
> filed against the package in question.
> Procedure to salvage a package
> -----------------------------------------
> If any of the criteria denoted above are fulfilled, anyone interested
> can start the salvage procedure.  For Debian Developers, it should be
> checked whether they are on vacation.
> 1) A bug with severity "serious" against the package in question must be
> filed, expressing the intent to take over maintainership of the package.
> The reporter may also offer co-maintenance of the package.
> 2) The maintainer, or any current uploader of the package in question
> may object publicly in response to the bug filed within 14 days. Of
> course, current maintainers may also agree to the intent to salvage a
> package by filing a (signed) public response to the bug. In such a case,
> a new package can be uploaded immediately thereafter by the new
> maintainer(s).
> 3) After waiting at least the required 14 days, another warning must be
> sent to the bug report, this time also the MIA team shall be informed
> and all maintainers or uploaders of the package shall be contacted
> explicitly as well.

  If the above criteria only apply to one package but the rest of
  maintainer's packages is being maintained, informing the MIA team should
  be bypassed: maintainer is just neglecting a single package but not MIA.
  And in fact there's little the MIA team can do with those maintainers, so
  this procedure could be a nicer alternative.

  Otherwise the MIA team should be Cc-ed first, when reporting the bug: the
  maintainer may be very likely MIA, I don't see a reason to wait more. And
  if MIA team achieves a response quicker, the salvage procedure bug can be
  fixed faster.


P.S.: please keep Cc to debian-qa, I'm not subscribed to debian-devel.
 Ricardo Mones, on behalf of Debian QA/MIA team
 «Tomorrow will be cancelled due to lack of interest.»

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: