Re: [gentoo-dev] net-proxy herd is still looking for help (was: Re: [gentoo-dev] net-proxy herd is empty)

2013-09-06 Thread Bertrand Jacquin

On 2013-09-01 16:01, Tom Wijsman wrote:

On Sun, 3 Mar 2013 21:00:19 +0200
Pavlos Ratis  wrote:


On Sun, Mar 3, 2013 at 6:16 PM, Tom Wijsman  wrote:
> On Sun, 03 Mar 2013 17:00:57 +0100
> Pacho Ramos  wrote:
>
>> As wschlich no longer has enough time for that packages, this herd
>> is now empty. If you want to help, please join the herd. If nobody
>> joins, I will proceed with dropping it and moving its packages
>> maintainer-needed letting everybody want the packages they prefer.
>
> Not joining until others join because I don't want to be the sole
> herd member, but I do want to help out with occasional bumps and
> such if there clearly is a case of lack of manpower.
>
> I'm also interested in stepping up as a maintainer for
> net-proxy/privoxy.

I am interested in joining the herd. Now we can be 2 members. :)


While I joined under the above premise to help out I have became the
main maintainer but am unable to cover everything this herd does;
Pavlos didn't have much time either to together cover everything.

So, we currently have around 48 bugs open at the moment; there are
also probably some versions bumps waiting as well, as well as some of
the other maintaining tasks that possibly come along.

If you want to help, please join the herd. If nobody joins, we will
likely proceed with dropping it in a month and moving its packages
to maintainer-needed letting everybody want the packages they prefer.


Can be in as a proxied maintainer as net-proxy is something I'm 
interested in as other net- stuff.



Another option is to combine the net herds together into a bigger net
herd, as I have previously suggested; we might need to look into that.




Re: [gentoo-dev] net-proxy herd is still looking for help (was: Re: [gentoo-dev] net-proxy herd is empty)

2013-09-01 Thread Rich Freeman
On Sun, Sep 1, 2013 at 10:01 AM, Tom Wijsman  wrote:
> If you want to help, please join the herd. If nobody joins, we will
> likely proceed with dropping it in a month and moving its packages
> to maintainer-needed letting everybody want the packages they prefer.
>
> Another option is to combine the net herds together into a bigger net
> herd, as I have previously suggested; we might need to look into that.

I'd think twice before doing that.  If there is a real synergy (common
eclass use, need to manage deps and releases, etc) then it might make
sense.  Otherwise all you end up doing is delaying the inevitable,
except this time with even a larger group of packages moving to
maintainer-needed.

Herds should be reasonably-sized, and they should be packages that
make sense to maintain together - not just collections of packages
that fit some theme.  We already have categories.  If maintainers
aren't coordinating across a herd then better to just split it up.

Note - I'm not calling for any dramatic changes here - if teams of
maintainers are already working closely together by all means keep
your herds.  However, if a herd is just a dumping ground for packages
that nobody really looks at, then it isn't being used properly.

Rich