Re: Fixed release dates are hurting quality
John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <glaubitz@physik.fu-berlin.de> writes:
> On 2/7/21 3:20 PM, David Bremner wrote:
>> John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <glaubitz@physik.fu-berlin.de> writes:
>>> It shouldn't be enough for a package to have its worst bugs fixed like
>>> FTBFS or crashes when it gets shipped with a release. Packages that
>>> are being shipped with a release should also be properly maintained or
>>> not shipped at all.
>> For context, there are currently 929 packages maintained by
>> packages@qa.debian.org. That doesn't count packages that have an
>> inactive maintainer, which is more challenging to quantify.
> Yes, and I think that number 929 is already too high.
I think everyone agrees that it would be better if those packages were
adopted. Forcing them to be adopted to remain in the distribution may
spark some adoption (although it may also backfire and spark adoption by
people seeking solely to keep them in the release but without any real
intent of working on them).
The more interesting question is what if there simply isn't resources to
adopt them and maintain them properly. In that case, are we better off
with them, or without them?
I don't think this answer is obvious, but I would lean towards saying
we're better off with them.
--
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <https://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Reply to: