Il giorno gio, 10/02/2011 alle 19.44 +0100, Krzysztof Pawlik ha scritto: > > I don't agree with that - QA doesn't give anyone a silver bullet for > killing > whatever you want (or whatever you think should die). Maintainer must > be > *always* notified/pinged/mailed/im'ed/phoned/poked when his package is > going to > be masked & removed, if he's responsive then getting his ACK on the > matter > shouldn't be a problem, if not... at least you've tried.
Please make up your mind on what you don't agree with. We don't need the ACK but we don't go around masking packages just because we feel like it. What gets the "Masked for removal by QA" treatment doesn't need an ACK because it's always stuff that was left untouched for months if not years. To rephrase it so that you can get it: WE DON'T GO AROUND REMOVING ACTIVELY MAINTAINED PACKAGES. But when the package is unmaintained for months, we don't _need_ the ACK, nor we'd have to say "we're given the go by the maintainer" or "maintainer timeout". We simply don't do that if there *is* an active, interested maintainer. If you're the active maintainer, you can complain if we didn't poke you, but you have actually been poked and either not replied or acked it, you really don't have to read it on the mask reason, unless you suffer from amnesia. And if you're *not* the active maintainer, why would you care? Remember that for *all* QA masking, the rule is simple: if you care about the package you bring it up to standard (cleanup ebuild, fix open bugs, make sure it doesn't bundle libraries, respects flags, and so on) and unmask it (the new versions obviously). Otherwise, it'll go away, full stop. No, we're not going to stop if "somebody is looking at it": looking at it doesn't mean that it will ever work, and don't give me the usual "warn us before" story, 'cause we use 60 days for most un-responsive packages, and 30 days only when the packages are just so broken up there's no chance of them working. And even though I don't like it, there is *nothing* stopping anybody from fixing the packages and unmasking them on the 29th or 59th day. Warning enough? -- Diego Elio Pettenò — Flameeyes http://blog.flameeyes.eu/
