On Sat, 2003-12-20 at 20:26, George Shapovalov wrote: > Well, the thing is that I *do not want* to maintain these packages. Over these > years (sounds funny when applied to Gentoo, doesn't it? :) . But it really > was like two years for me already) I processed all kinds of packages > semirandomly assigned to me. So now, with the push for organization, I would > like to loose some of them :). > > Adding a temporary metadata does not work, because in reality it is not going > to be temporary. In my experiense things tend to stick, even if there is a > reasonably high traffic in them. With low maintaince packages their metadata > are going to be like set in stone.
Well, you do have to actively look for a maintainer. Anyway, you can usually go with the category herd, only you do have to inform them and make it 'official' theirs. > Besides, on that "noherd" thing - I despise it. For one it is plain illegal. > Plus, considering what I just mentioned about the temporareliness of metadata > of such packages, it is likely to remain "noherd" for foreseable future. Yeah, the example was about the comment really, you are reading things into it. I don't like no-herd much either and wouldn't use it myself, I'd try to find a suitable herd or create one (it's also about indexing what herds are needed). > > In my opinion it is most important to get full maintainer/herd coverage > > of packages asap. > Just adding whatever in order to get that damn metadata in is a bad thing IMO. > We will need anoter major push down the road, but this time to get trough > "noherd" packages (I hope this is the only kind of junk we collect in > metadata atm). Why don't we do it all in one go instead? Hm, what do you mean ? 'no-herd' is a valid entry, it is no problem to have no-herd packages as long as it has active maintainers. So there's really nothing to go trough. > So, the only change I can envision doing is, instead of "unofficially" taking > care of these packages as time allows, to outright drop them and throw the > related bugs back to bug-wranglers. You shift the problem to developers outside yourself, i don't know what packages you talk about exactly. If you were at one time maintaining a package, you are probably still one of the best people on the team to take care for it as long as it has no herd assigned. I know there are a lot of devs who have in the past happily added new packages to portage, but when it came to maintaining them they really let it go a bit. I don't know if that is the case here and i do not say you did this, but the whole herds idea is about responsibility and right now the responsibility for you is to get these packages certain maintainership. The move to a full covered maintainership of packages in the tree trough herds is a big job (which has already taken too long imo) and i think every dev has a responsibility to do his part of the job to make it happen. Pushing it all on the bug-wranglers as you suggest is no option in my opinion. These are my views, i don't know how people involved in bug-wrangling or the herd initiators think about this. - foser -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
