On 11/19/2017 01:45 PM, Philip Webb wrote: > 171119 James Le Cuirot wrote: >> On Sun, 19 Nov 2017 08:50:20 -0500 >> Philip Webb <purs...@ca.inter.net> wrote: >>> 171118 David Seifert wrote: >>>> As the Games team does not have enough manpower to keep tabs on all >>>> games packages, we have dropped all games-* ebuilds to unstable >>>> keywords (modulo those required by stable non-games packages). >>> Isn't this overkill in the absence of widespread bug reports for games ? >>> 'Stable' doesn't mean well-maintained, >>> but in the tree for some time & no serious bug reports. >> There are plenty of bug reports for games. > > What percentage of games pkgs have bugs ? > > Eg I amuse myself with games-puzzle/sgt-puzzles ; > it is maintained upstream with regular updates. > The only unresolved bug appears to be 602696 > which relates to version 20161207, which is no longer in the tree : > why is the bug still marked 'confirmed' ? Shouldn't it be 'resolved' ? > > What justification is there for marking this pkg 'unstable' ? > My guess is that there are other games pkgs with no valid bug. > > Marking all games 'unstable' still seems to be overkill. >
I am going to add my +1 to overkill. Firstly, we need to reclarify... Games Project doesn't have exclusive control over the games-* categories... So, this should only apply to packages that the games project controls. The original message doesn't really convey that. Secondly, if the issue is Games Project, then if there is another maintainer involved in maintaining a package, then the decision to drop keywords should be mutual with the other maintainer, or Games should consider dropping maintainership in deference to the other, active maintainer. Which brings me to the third point... If the Games Project admits that it doesn't have the manpower to maintain things, and is forcibly dropping all stable keywords as part of their non-maintenance, I think they should adopt a policy of allowing anyone to come in and take over (and potentially remove them) from the package. Someone else should be able to vouch for and work for the stability and quality of a package and take responsibility for it. By Games Project being in the metadata, it gives the false impression that they are responsible. I'm the maintainer of games-puzzle/sgt-puzzles and while Games Project is in the metadata, I'm really the primary maintainer. I don't want my stable keywords dropped. You are welcome to drop your project from the metadata, but please leave my package, and all those that others are responsible for, alone. -- NP-Hardass
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
