Dagobert Michelsen wrote: > Hi Trygve, > > Am 12.11.2008 um 14:10 schrieb Trygve Laugstøl: >> As a group of volunteers you really don't have the right to tell >> people >> what they should work on. Peter and everyone else has their own >> right to >> work on what they feel like. So do you, and if you feel that the >> packages you mention should be updated, you should feel free to do so. > > Of course you are free to work on the projects you like. However, > when you release a package, you have the responsibility to > update it regularly and fix bugs as they are reported. Having > major bugs open for a year or more is simply unacceptable. > I am working on a webpage to make this more transparent > and to make sure that critical bugs are cared for. The tool is > not ready yet, but I'll hope to publish something useful > before Zurich so we know where we stand.
Well, this is something that we have to talk about in Zurich. I really can't be expected to update my packages within a certain number of days after a new release/bug/whatever. It is not that I'm going to do it if I have the time, but I don't want to be know as a "bad" maintainer if I don't. I really don't like the fact that we talk about "mine" and "your" packages all the time, they are *our* packages! Having a primary maintainer is probably wise (though it could also be a set of primary maintainers) as those are most likely to know how to fix bugs. If a primary maintainer fails to update the package within reasonable time, I would *hope* that someone can pick up the pieces and publish it. To help supporting a process like that I hope that we can focus on re-producible builds and a better validation framework with Hudson. -- Trygve _______________________________________________ maintainers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.opencsw.org/mailman/listinfo/maintainers
