On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 5:12 PM, Tobias Scherbaum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> John Brooks wrote:
>> Random idea: How about a different bug assignee for maintainer-needed
>> packages with provided ebuilds/patches? Either something generic, or
>> try to go for something more category/package specific (herds, etc).
>> Lots of work for bugwranglers, though. There is a huge difference to
>> developers between an unmaintained package with no progress and just
>> looking over an ebuild that has been used successfully by several
>> people.
> No need for an additional mail/bugzie alias here, we could simply use a
> KEYWORD like the existing 'Inclusion' (which isn't used that much for
> now, 63 open bugs have that keyword) or a new 'HasPatch' as a
> counterpart for 'NeedPatch'.

(This email isn't targeted towards Tobias - just replying)

What is wrong with the KEYWORD called 'EBUILD' defined as: "Marks an
issue to be a user submitted ebuild." ? You can easily make a search
that is assigned to maintainer-needed and has the EBUILD keyword (or
any keyword).[1]

I feel like you guys are trying to solve issues related to an
underlying problem but not actually targeting the problem itself. The
main issue is a lack of man-power. Also, devs willing to maintain
packages but then later retiring and leaving the packages in limbo.
Maybe there should be some policy such as, when devs retire if no one
else steps up to maintain the package, then it automatically gets
moved to sunrise overlay and only maintained packages stay in the
portage tree. This would cut down on our current 247 maintainer-needed
bugs[2] or our 35 bugs assigned to maintainer-needed with 'bump' in
the summary[3]. However, keep in mind that we do have 497 bugs
assigned to anyone with 'bump' in the summary[4].

Just some thoughts to ponder,

[1]: http://tinyurl.com/6y653y
[2]: http://tinyurl.com/6olohq
[3]: http://tinyurl.com/5d3tfl
[4]: http://tinyurl.com/689y5p

Reply via email to