On Mi, 2011-06-22 at 19:18 +0300, Markos Chandras wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA512 > > On 22/06/2011 06:47 μμ, Christoph Mende wrote: > > On Mi, 2011-06-22 at 18:33 +0300, Markos Chandras wrote: > >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > >> Hash: SHA512 > >> > >> On 22/06/2011 06:19 ??, Dane Smith wrote: > >>> - gpg control packet > >>> All, > >>> [..] > >>> Thanks! > >>> > >>> [1] > >>> http://dev.c1pher.net/index.php/2011/03/c1phers-adopt-a-package-program/ > >>> > >> Hi Dane, > >> > >> I tried to do the same a year ago. Have a look here. It may help you > >> understand why that effort did not succeed > >> > >> http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/gentoo/dev/209204 > > > > I see concerns about to-be-orphaned ebuilds where proxied maintainers > > only care about the ebuild for a short period. This would only be a > > problem with new ebuilds that will be added to the tree with a proxy > > maintainer. Instead of encouraging that, this project could have a goal > > to reduce m-n packages by assigning proxy maintainers. > > So no new packages, only old ones revived. Sounds reasonable to me. > > > This is what treecleaners try to do. Announce the upcoming removal of a > package so users can step up and maintain a package
Well yes, but with such a project users might notice the packages before they're about to be removed. Also the important difference is that not one Gentoo dev does the commits, but many - whoever reads the mail/ticket/bug/whatever first. > > Although I didn't read the full thread, so please don't decapitate me if > > there were other concerns. > > The purpose of Dane's proposal is to push ebuilds to portage tree that > you, as developer, have no interest in them at all, but users do. If the > proxy-maintainer disappears, you can always leave it portage tree as m-n > (assuming no open bugs) or ask treecleaners to remove it. Guess I'm proposing something different then.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
