On Mon, 2006-06-12 at 15:19 +0200, Stefan Schweizer wrote: > > I'm 100% against implicit acceptance. If someone from the sunrise > > project wishes to add an ebuild to the overlay they should have to get > > an explicit OK from the team in question. > we are not doing this, because we do not want to put more work on teams that > are overworked anyway. Everything that is assigned to maintainer-wanted in > bugzilla means that it wants a maintainer and has no maintainer. If not, it > would not have been assigned to maintainer-wanted. We are allowed to > maintain packages that want a maintainer without asking anyone. Especially > since we are removing the packages if any other herd shows interest.
This is actually factually incorrect. The maintainer-wanted alias has become a dumping ground for any new package requests. In the past, the packages were assigned via a "best guess" method to individual herds. If it were possible to check the history of assignments easily in bugzilla, you would see the very large numbers of bugs that get assigned to maintainer-wanted that definitely belong to a specific team. A good example is when someone posts a games-* ebuild to bugzilla, and it gets assigned to maintainer-wanted. Now, the bug-wranglers catch most of these and reassign them to us because we've requested it, but this isn't the case for all of the teams/herds. > > The sunrise project could of > > course keep a list of teams that have given a blanket OK and of those > > that have totally opted out. > There are teams that have made very clear that they are not interested in > other people maintaining there packages. For example the games team does > not assign any bugs to maintainer-wanted. It is obvious to every > contributor that he cannot commit such packages, because they are not > assigned to maintainer-wanted. However it is still possible to ask the games > team to reassign the package to maintainer-wanted in order to get it into > the sunrise overlay. Alternatively we help the contirbutor then to get the > ebuild to quality so that the herd in question can commit it. We don't do the assignments. We take them *from* maintainer-wanted because we've found that maintainer-wanted is a dumping ground and things get lost there. I personally, not speaking for games anymore, think that maintainer-wanted has been a failure and has contributed to the problem more than it has helped. It was supposed to make things easier to track. It hasn't. I think a "middle ground" solution would be best. Assign the bug to the herd/team that would most likely be the maintainer, and have maintainer-wanted in CC. If the team doesn't want to maintain it, then it gets assigned to maintainer-wanted and the team goes on CC. I'm not saying that this doesn't happen. It does. It just doesn't happen *consistently* which makes it less useful. > I still do not get why there will be bugs generated? > "Nevertheless the overlay ebuilds are mainly from users, thus being > _unsupported_ and _experimental_" A warning does not prevent bug reports. You should have been around long enough by now to know that. ;] -- Chris Gianelloni Release Engineering - Strategic Lead x86 Architecture Team Games - Developer Gentoo Linux
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
