Hi, Thank you very much for your experience and information sharing. I learnt very much with your answers.
--- The goal of my suggestions was related to ebuilds that become unattended more than one year or being left behind even further. Anyway the right timescale depends on each project and so each team could define the right limit. This kind of policies would allow to take care of forgotten or neglected ebuilds in portage. But this policy implementation only deserves attention when updating new profile releases. The policy action could just place a portage warning with hard mask of those packages that will be removed in next profile release. Because I like very much the idea of not loosing ebuilds (we wants it!... we needs it must!... my precious), I suggested that in this case could be relevant to have another profile stage such as ceased or unattended. So with this kind of action would allow to reduce work, keeping the focus of maintenance where it is most needed. --- I have to leave a very big thanks to all dedication and time that all Gentoo developers, maintainers, teams, ... spent with this noble cause. Cheers On 2020-04-11 16:53, James Le Cuirot wrote: > On Fri, 10 Apr 2020 18:21:00 +0200 > Jonas Stein <jst...@gentoo.org> wrote: > >>> I would like to leave a suggestion for Gentoo portage ebuild review. >>> Since there are some ebuilds in portage that become outdated for more >>> than one year when there are new versions available, maybe could be >>> possible to add a new step in Gentoo QA service to generate an alarm >>> (send email to project and CI leaders) to request a human review. >> This service does already exist. Everybody can use repology [1], euscan >> [2] and others. >> >> Bumping a package needs time - especially for testing. I work a lot on >> our bug tracker and my impression is that automatic bugs for a bump >> request are contra productive. We already have many important, but easy >> to fix open bugs. >> Automatic tickets for packages will flood bugzilla with tickets for >> unused packages and bind additional manpower. > Totally agree. I have already used euscan, and nowadays repology, and > they're very useful for keeping on top of the stuff I directly > maintain. I can also use them for the wider games team but there's a > mountain of work to do there and that's not even counting the constant > flood of largely automated bug reports we already get every day. I just > do what I can. >
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
