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

Re: [PROPOSAL v2] Orphaning another maintainer's packages

On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 02:30:20PM +0000, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Consider the case where a maintainer objects.  In that case you're
> counting in the previous "long waiting" time a period which the
> orphaner probably thinks shows disinterest in the package, but during
> which the maintainer may well feel (for part of the time at least)
> that the package simply didn't need any attention.

I keep on thinking that we are talking about different packages.  If a
maintainer is "simply feels that the packages didn't need any attention"
these are not packages which are for instance:

  - lagging *way* behind upstream (regarding time or version number)
  - leaving open bugs simply unanswered (=do not give any reasons
    for not working on a bug)
  - etc.

I do not speak about feelings but measurable facts.

> So I don't think
> counting time-since-last-touched towards the notification period (even
> in the moral sense you're now doing) is reasonable.

I should be more precise:  It is not time-since-last-touched but rather
time-with-reported-problem-but-no-reaction.  I definitely expect a
maintainer to at least respons to a bug report somehow like "I'm willing
to do something in time X but do not have time now bla bla".  If you
find several bugs on a package with no response (assuming reasonable
reports which for instance also might affect a potential orphaner) I
would perfectly include the time-since-last-issue-without-any-reaction
into the waiting time and this is the time X I was talking about (and I
always lived under the impression that we are talking about packages of
this kind.

> Also this argument is a form of "this has been waiting for ages so now
> it is urgent" which I don't really agree with (unless there's an
> actual deadline of course).

I would rather call it a "this has been waiting for ages so you are
obviosely not interested and no harm is done if I take action nowish".
> Unless we're having some heavyweight process with multiple pings
> etc. (which we IMO shouldn't) the way the maintainer might first
> discover that someone feels the package needs to be orphaned is by the
> ITO bug.  The maintainer needs to have a good chance to object.

Why should a maintainer who ignored several other bugs should be
astonished about such kind of a bug?

OK, if you want a chance for objection:  Lets add to the procedure an
upload to DELAYED/15 which gives another two weeks time to react.  I
definitely think that somebody who really is in the mood of salvaging
a package and has some momentum should not be delayed a longer time
than two weeks to start with some action.
> >   We are not talking about stealing packages right at the first day
> > of a maintainers VAC, right?
> That's not the intent, of course.  But if we invent a new process with
> objective criteria, it needs to be robust against malicious
> interpretation (or indeed careless action which follows the letter of
> the rules).

I did not followed all the mails of this thread but I never had the
impression that the drivers of a simple package salvaging process seemed 
to some extend careless.  I respect my fellow maintainers high enough to
simply assume that they do not do careless action and will deal with the
rules sensible enough that no extra hurdles are needed.

Kind regards



Reply to: