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

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

* Andreas Tille <andreas@an3as.eu> [121031 08:06]:
> > 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)

There were some cases in the past where the maintainer did not package
new upstream version because they had some serious issues (or because
they only wanted to follow stable releases in cases where stable and
preview releases were hard to distinguish for a outsider) while someone
else mistook this for a missing action.

>   - leaving open bugs simply unanswered (=do not give any reasons
>     for not working on a bug)

Who of us never put some unimportant bug that would need some longer
investigating in a row to make sure it is actually not a bug and
forgot to post a little note of "will look into this later".

> I do not speak about feelings but measurable facts.

Many facts are not black and white, but in practise there is much of

> > 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".

This assumes that it actually has been waiting for so long. Different
people often see things from a different perspective. And the point
of this waiting is exactly to make sure that this view is not missing.
If it were so clear when a package is neglected and when not, we could
just do without the whole waiting period and giving the maintainer
chance to object and simply hijack the package directly.

        Bernhard R. Link

Reply to: