[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, Sep 28, 2012 at 05:52:23PM +0000, Bart Martens wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 06:48:22PM +0200, Arno Töll wrote:
> > Actual proposal follows:
> The proposal adds a new procedure that overlaps/bypasses existing procedures.
> We have discussed that before in this thread :
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2012/07/msg00540.html
> What we essentially need, is a lightweight procedure to orphan individual
> packages.  I propose this :
> After the package is orphaned, the rest of the "salvaging" fits in the existing
> procedures.

As a general principle, I'm with Bart here.  I don't think we will
benefit from a new, relatively complex, procedure that overlaps with
other existing mechanisms.

Socially, we need to acknowledge the fact that the current procedure to
orphan packages might be too heavyweight, and too coarse-grained, to
efficiently deal with the frequent situation where maintainers lose
interest in specific packages.  Procedurally, we need rule of thumbs
that empower more active and interested maintainers to understand when
they can go on. And we need to favor the current maintainers if they
show up again *doing* something on the packages in question.

Also, I've grown weary of procedures with several steps, each of which
with delays. In my (now fairly extensive) experience in promoting what
have been called "liberal NMUs", I think I've learned that the key is
empowering motivated people right there, when they are active and
interested. Ask them to wait in several steps, for several weeks, and
most of them will probably lose interest and move on.

Of course we need *some* waiting time for orphaning by 3rd-parties, but
IMHO we should not require more than a reasonable time frame before
acting + a long DELAYED/XX value. After that, waiting (for the
DELAYED/XX value to expire) should result in the desired behavior,
i.e. salvaged package.

I don't know what to make of the "seconds" suggestion by Bart, though. I
understand the rationale, but is not clear to me how to raise the
interest by other DDs in reviewing the "intent to orphan" bugs filed by
3rd parties. Maybe we should document to post them on -qa? That *might*
have the side-effect of fostering the creation of a review community for
these kind of actions on -qa. Mumble mumble...

Stefano Zacchiroli  . . . . . . .  zack@upsilon.cc . . . . o . . . o . o
Maître de conférences . . . . . http://upsilon.cc/zack . . . o . . . o o
Debian Project Leader . . . . . . @zack on identi.ca . . o o o . . . o .
« the first rule of tautology club is the first rule of tautology club »

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: