On Oct 2, 2008, at 2:02 PM, Eric Hall wrote: > On Thu, Oct 02, 2008 at 01:46:17PM +0200, C. Florian Ebeling wrote: >> On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 12:04 PM, Ryan Schmidt >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> On Oct 2, 2008, at 4:51 AM, Rainer M??ller wrote: >>>> Ryan Schmidt wrote: >>>>> >>>>> I think the discussion was about changing the maintainer >>>>> timeout, not >>>>> abandoning it, but I don't think it got anywhere. It's still >>>>> documented in the Guide that if a maintainer does not respond to a >>>>> ticket in 72 hours, anybody else can take it, and I recommend >>>>> still >>>>> following that rule. >>>> >>>> But it is also documented that if the maintainer does not >>>> respond in >>>> three weeks, the port should be considered abandoned. >>>> >>>> <http://guide.macports.org/#project.update-policies.abandonment> >>>> >>>> But if tickets are always picked up after 72h, there will never >>>> be the >>>> three weeks timeout and the unresponding maintainer will never be >>>> removed... >>> >>> Yes, I do agree the port abandonment procedure is in conflict >>> with the >>> maintainer timeout rule. I think the timeout rule is fine; we >>> just need a >>> better abandonment procedure. >>> >>> It currently says if a maintainer has not acknowledged a ticket >>> within 3 >>> weeks, then a new port abandonment ticket should be filed, and >>> that the port >>> abandonment ticket can be acted upon immediately to assign a new >>> maintainer. >>> I propose this be changed so that if there are n or more tickets >>> about a >>> maintainer's ports that he has not acknowledged, and it has been >>> more than >>> 72 hours since they were filed, then a new port abandonment >>> ticket should be >>> filed and assigned to the maintainer. If the maintainer does not >>> respond to >>> that ticket within 3 weeks, then the port is considered >>> abandoned. n could >>> be some number between, say, 2 and 5. How about a nice round 3? >> >> the number of ports this maintainer is responsible for has to >> go into the equation as well I guess. Otherwise one-port-maintainers >> have indefinite grace period :) >> >> but to be honest I find this whole Abandonment procedure a bit >> draconian >> and scary. Why not just make a rule that says that after more than >> 72 hours >> a port becomes openmaintainer? maybe that was discussed already in >> the >> other thread, though. but I would not really file abandonment to >> fix a bug >> in a port I'm marginally interested in. > > I think making a port openmaintainer after 72 hours is a bad idea, > think about a time when a maintainer is on vacation for a week. > The idea of > filing an abandonment ticket and assigning it to the maintainer > makes sense > to me when there's an indication that the maintainer isn't > responding to > outstanding tickets against a port. The three week grace period > covers most > cases of vacations and the like (not sure how we let people indicate > they'll be away for longer than three weeks).
The maintainer could just send an email to the dev list. I think then we'd remember the maintainer's name if it came up in an abandonment request ticket. _______________________________________________ macports-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/macports-dev
