On 2022/05/01 01:01, Marc Espie wrote: > On Sat, Apr 30, 2022 at 08:43:13PM +0100, Stuart Henderson wrote: > > On 2022/04/30 16:37, Solène Rapenne wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > I don't know if it has been debated before but I'd like to propose a > > > change, or at least discuss about it. > > > > > > - people submitting new ports must become maintainer > > > > > > - ports without a maintainer must find a maintainer > > > > > > - ports where the maintainer is getting removed or not answering MUST > > > find a new maintainer > > > > strong dislike. > > > I'm with Stuart on this, but I will elaborate. > > Our current problem is having enough developers to handle the flow of ports. > > As far as porting new stuff/updating stuff goes, sometimes people will do > the work, but do not want to commit to maintainership. If we try to enforce > that, we may actually push some people away. > > I don't see any real problem this would solve. > > In an ideal world, we would have three times as many dedicated people curating > the tree. But we want relevant ports to keep coming. >
Also, a port with an unresponsive maintainer is a block to someone else doing work in ports (either the port itself, or another one which requires changes in some port). You might say this covers it: > > > - ports where the maintainer is getting removed or not answering MUST > > > find a new maintainer But then what if nobody wants to take maintainer for something which is a dependency of a bunch of other ports? Remove them all? Who is going to do that? It's actually quite delicate work. For ports which I have written, I tend to take maintainer if I want to review changes to that port (either something I use fairly often, maybe in production) or know that it's a tricky one, otherwise I often won't because I don't want to block other people working on it.
