Re: only release packages that have maintainers?
On Tue, Feb 20, 2001 at 10:20:36PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Feb 2001, Brian Russo wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Feb 20, 2001 at 08:57:39PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > > I remember that "silo" was orphaned for several months before someone
> > > adopted it...
> >
> > I'm not talking about several months, more like 1 year+, there are
> > many of these in wnpp.
>
> Since the cleanup Martin made there can't be many that are orphaned for
> more than half a year with noone who intends to adopt them.
[ you mention someone is adopting saml in a separate email ]
ok that's fine, but this was a recent occurence, there was a long
period where it was completely orphaned, and there are other
packages that are still, completely orphaned.
...
so we just let them sit there, forever?
I mean someone will eventually pick them up.. yes, that's probably
true, let it sit there long enough, for a couple years and probably
some NM will grab it, but all during that time you have crappy
ancient packages sitting around. Probably even the NM's that grab
them don't really care,
as if it were _so_ traumatic that after being removed a package
should be later re-introduced when someone decides that its useful!
it's not like it's hard to get packages into the archive, it _IS_
hard to get them out, this is mildly silly.
also, if someone really wants a package of it, and its no longer in
the distro, it's not *too* hard for them to get an older package out
of archives.
> > If something has been abandoned for a 1 year and a half, you don't
> > think it's crufty?
>
> Not automatically.
I don't remember saying it should be automatic.
>
> I'm willing to spend some time on the packages that are orphaned, it
> doesn't matter if they are officially maintained by QA or by me. Has
> anyone a good reason why it's bad when I take care of these packages
> instead of seeing them getting removed? I can't see the benefits when we
> get rid of let's say 50 packages.
I'm not saying you don't have a right to upload -qa packages or any
such thing. What I don't understand is if you really think they're
useful, why you don't adopt them outright (no, not adopt then RFA).
One of the present tasks of the -qa team is maintaining orphaned
packages, but beyond a certain point, they must be dropped.
Benefits of removing 50 crappy packages:
o. Number of bugs in general goes down.
o. Users are confronted with less crap to install
o. Fewer collisions in the package name/file system namespace.
o. Less load on BTS, ftp archives, mirrors, et al.
o. Debian has less of a reputation for having old, worthless crappy
packages.
o. QA team can (maybe) spend time ACTUALLY doing QA instead of
maintaining old, worthless packages that nobody visibly cares about.
o. If they're crappy worthless packages, what's the real benefit of
having them any? And WHY hadn't they been adopted ages ago?
o. Fewer flamewars on "old crappy packages" on -policy, -qa, etc.
I'm not talking about old packages per se, some old packages are
simply stable, no active development 'cause no need to, etc.
I'm not talking about 4 month old maintainerless packages, some are
just lonely, looking for someone to pick them up.
I AM talking about ancient, buggy packages (no not /just/ RC
bugs) that are maintainerless, often having a dead upstream, that
have been sitting around for a fairly long time (i'd say 8 months is
a pretty lenient cut-off).
Quality Assurance (n):
a program for the systematic monitoring and evaluation of the
various aspects of a project, service, or facility to ensure that
standards of quality are being met
hmm,
Perhaps we should rename the Quality Assurance team to the
Debian Historical Package Preservation Society ?
...
one last thought, it seems accepted that its ok for maintainers to
ask for their packages to be removed, if this is true, would anyone
object if i adopted a package then asked for its removal?
i know this is silly, but then i think this whole thread is silly.
--
Brian Russo <brusso@phys.hawaii.edu>
Debian/GNU Linux <wolfie@debian.org> http://www.debian.org
LPSG "member" <wolfie@lpsg.org> http://www.lpsg.org
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Reply to: