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

Re: unanswered merge requests



On Saturday, 7 March 2020 08:19:02 AEDT Rebecca N. Palmer wrote:
> Andreas Tille wrote:
> > I was just
> > astonished about the long list of unattended merge requests in Debian
> > Science team.  I wonder whether we should somehow prevent people from
> > dumping code there which will simply bitrot since nobody realy cares.
> 
> Salsa allows users to request notifications of merge requests [0], or
> project admins to disable merge requests [1].
> 
> This was previously discussed on d-d - Sam Hartman wrote (as part of a
> 
> list of recommended-but-not-required practices) [2]:
> > You should make sure that at least one person sets their notification
> > level to 'watch' rather than global.  This way you will receive
> > notifications of merge requests and changes.
> > 
> > Hopefully you will choose to monitor merge requests for your
> > repository.  If not, turn off merge requests.  If you enable merge
> > requests, you should be as responsive to merge requests as you are
> > patches in the BTS.

Our problem is packages that are sitting within teams pretending to be 
maintained, that are actually unmaintained. Unactioned MRs on salsa are a 
symptom of that just like untriaged bugs in the BTS or unpackaged upstream 
versions.

Patches bitrot in the BTS just as fast as they bitrot in an MR.

I would very much hope that we do not turn of merge requests on salsa. Doing 
so would just mean that we go from:
	having unmaintained packages where others willing to help fix a bug can
	make MRs
to
	having unmaintained packages where people interested in helping out
	occasionally cannot make MRs
… which is not an improvement. 

We need a little more of a spring clean through packages within some of our 
teams. Working towards the Python 2 removal has highlighted quite a lot 
packages where we have a problem.

A starting point could be to look at packages that have only had Team Uploads 
and not maintainer/uploader uploads in the last x years or in the last y 
release cycles. Perhaps those packages are actually orphaned packages and we 
should treat them as such. We could get those data from UDD if there isn't 
already a PET-like interface that is exposing that info.

regards
Stuart

-- 
Stuart Prescott    http://www.nanonanonano.net/   stuart@nanonanonano.net
Debian Developer   http://www.debian.org/         stuart@debian.org
GPG fingerprint    90E2 D2C1 AD14 6A1B 7EBB 891D BBC1 7EBB 1396 F2F7



Reply to: