On Sat, 20 Dec 2008, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
I would like to formalize the idea a bit more and we could use the DEP
process for this. I would be willing to work on the implementation once
we agree on the process.
It looks like enough people think it might be worth experimenting.
Is someone
On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 09:31:02PM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
It looks like enough people think it might be worth experimenting.
Can you please back this?
I've just re-read about a half of the posts in these thread and most
of them don't like at least some aspects of your proposal.
Don't
On Fri, 23 Jan 2009, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 09:31:02PM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
It looks like enough people think it might be worth experimenting.
Can you please back this?
I've just re-read about a half of the posts in these thread and most
of them don't
On Sun, 21 Dec 2008, Mark Brown wrote:
On Sat, Dec 20, 2008 at 06:19:26PM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
The collation of all those data will give us a better view on the
maintenance status of each package and it could be displayed on the PTS.
We could also use those info to direct new
Hi Raphaël,
I like your proposal in principle, but I see some problem with
group maintenance. While I'm in principle a supporter of group
maintenance I do not see how it should work with your proposal.
Who in the group will be addressed by your proposal? You are
talking about a passive
On Mon, 22 Dec 2008, Andreas Tille wrote:
Do you just want to parse the list of Maintainer / Uploaders
and leave out generic group addresses?
Yes, only real people are important and able to work. :)
You are talking about a passive maintainer in the case of the Perl
maintainers group.
No. I
Hello,
The basic idea is quite simple, we want to ensure that each package
is
maintained as well as possible and for this we need to ensure that
it has one or more active maintainer(s).
What do you think of the idea ?
I think this is a great idea and should be implemented.
Jeremiah
On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 09:25:32AM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
On Sun, 21 Dec 2008, Mark Brown wrote:
I'm not sure that the e-mail bit of this really adds anything - the
I don't understand why you say that:
- email is the primary way to get in touch with a maintainer
- making sure that
On 20/12/08 at 18:19 +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
Hello,
I would like to propose something new that would partially supersede the
work done by the MIA team and that would also generate new information
somehow related to the topic of WNPP.
The basic idea is quite simple, we want to ensure
On Mon, 22 Dec 2008, Mark Brown wrote:
things. My concern with sending out the e-mails to all and sundry is
that it's taking things too far in the initial stages of the process and
that adding that further down the line when the system is established
would be a better approach.
Ok. Looks
On Mon, 22 Dec 2008, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
Your main goal is to improve our detection of packages that need
attention. (it would also help detect inactive maintainers, but even
that has the goal of improving the quality of our packages).
Not only. One of the aspects that I like most in this
Raphael Hertzog hert...@debian.org writes:
I know that it is similar to the RFH/RFA that we have in WNPP but that
system is IMO not working because:
- too few maintainers are using it, thus looking for packages to help
there is not really interesting (not enough choice) and thus the
On Sat, 20 Dec 2008, Enrico Zini wrote:
I quite liked the idea of allowing to set such attributes in the control
file because, rather than looking like someone putting their nose on how
one maintains packages, they are a handy way to document the
maintainer's intentions with the package,
On Sun, 21 Dec 2008, Filippo Giunchedi wrote:
I like the general idea, here are a few points/questions:
Have a procedure to not receive the mail in the future (perhaps making it
possible to (manually, via email?) re-enable at some later time)
The best results are achieved if everyone
On Sat, 20 Dec 2008, Russ Allbery wrote:
Raphael Hertzog hert...@debian.org writes:
The basic idea is quite simple, we want to ensure that each package is
maintained as well as possible and for this we need to ensure that
it has one or more active maintainer(s). Hence every X months, each
On Sat, Dec 20, 2008 at 06:19:26PM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
I would like to propose something new that would partially supersede
the work done by the MIA team and that would also generate new
information somehow related to the topic of WNPP.
Well, I like the principle (who having a
Raphael Hertzog hert...@debian.org writes:
Agreed. I'm not sure what's the best way to handle this.
Maybe the form should make it easy to give the same answers to all
packages that are maintained by a given team ? We could use easily
identify the team by finding out an email that matches
On Sun, 21 Dec 2008 11:28:17 +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
That's going to be a lot of fairly mindless paperwork for someone who's
the member of a large, active team with a lot of packages.
Agreed. I'm not sure what's the best way to handle this.
Maybe the form should make it easy to give
On Sun, Dec 21, 2008 at 11:16:28AM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
The best results are achieved if everyone participates so I'd rather find
ways to make it painless for everybody first. But knowing how diverse the
opinions are, we will probably have to do something like this.
There's no way
On Sat, Dec 20, 2008 at 06:19:26PM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
The collation of all those data will give us a better view on the
maintenance status of each package and it could be displayed on the PTS.
We could also use those info to direct new contributors to help in
existing packages
Hello,
I would like to propose something new that would partially supersede the
work done by the MIA team and that would also generate new information
somehow related to the topic of WNPP.
The basic idea is quite simple, we want to ensure that each package is
maintained as well as possible and
On Sat, 20 Dec 2008, Sune Vuorela wrote:
On 2008-12-20, Raphael Hertzog hert...@debian.org wrote:
maintainer receives a mail with a link to a web form where he'll have a
list of all the packages that he maintains/co-maintains and for each
package he has to answer several questions that
Responding to myself to share other details related to this idea
that I didn't want to include in the initial mail.
On Sat, 20 Dec 2008, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
The basic idea is quite simple, we want to ensure that each package is
maintained as well as possible and for this we need to ensure
On Sat, 20 Dec 2008, Luk Claes wrote:
I don't think sending active maintainers questionaires is very helpful.
I don't think the active/not active criteria is so easy to find out. I can
be active on dpkg while being not active on my others packages. At some
point I must recognize that I've lost
* Raphael Hertzog:
- what kind of maintainer he is
- active (responding quickly, forwarding bugs, …)
- passive (responds only to major problems)
- backup (not doing anything unless solicited)
- if the package needs an active maintainer or not (most perl modules are
well maintained
On Sat, Dec 20, 2008 at 07:32:01PM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
It could also be used to create a new maintenance facet in debtags.
maint::orphaned, maint::active, maint::passive, maint::help-needed,
maint::need-active-maint
I've been thinking about such a maintenance facet for quite a
Hi,
On Sat, Dec 20, 2008 at 06:19:26PM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
The basic idea is quite simple, we want to ensure that each package is
maintained as well as possible and for this we need to ensure that
it has one or more active maintainer(s). Hence every X months, each
maintainer
27 matches
Mail list logo
