Re: Self-assessment of the quality of the maintenance work
Raphael Hertzog <hertzog@debian.org> writes:
> I know that it is similar to the RFH/RFA that we have in WNPP but that
> system is IMO not working because:
> - too few maintainers are using it, thus looking for packages to help
> there is not really interesting (not enough "choice") and thus the
> system is not very efficient
Well, I, for one, have been discouraged from using the RFH system because
I don't think I've ever seen any package come *off* of that list.
At some level, just about every package in Debian could use help, in the
sense that there's always a to-do list and things that haven't been done
yet. It feels like this is what the RFH system is currently devolving
into, and when large packages have long-term listings there that don't
seem likely to ever go away (and which aren't closed when people join the
package teams), I have to wonder if it's really accomplishing anything to
add to the list.
If it were more dynamic and pointed only to packages with critical
shortfalls of resources, I think it would work better.
RFA I think does work reasonably well. It just has a higher bar. (And it
makes sense to me that things would sit in RFA for some time, since often
they're listed there because the DD is no longer personally using the
package, often for reasons that mean the package is being used less in
general.)
--
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Reply to: