On Fri, Mar 30, 2007 at 06:51:52AM -0400, Roberto C. S?nchez wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 30, 2007 at 10:13:47AM +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 30, 2007 at 05:09:12AM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> > > >Russ Allbery wrote:
> > > >So, here's a possibly weird proposal.
> > > >
> > > >What
On Fri, Mar 30, 2007 at 06:51:52AM -0400, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 30, 2007 at 10:13:47AM +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 30, 2007 at 05:09:12AM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> > > >Russ Allbery wrote:
> > > >So, here's a possibly weird proposal.
> > > >
> > > >What
On Fri, Mar 30, 2007 at 10:13:47AM +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 30, 2007 at 05:09:12AM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> > >Russ Allbery wrote:
> > >So, here's a possibly weird proposal.
> > >
> > >What if we had some mechanism whereby people could indicate interest in
> > >maintain
On Fri, Mar 30, 2007 at 05:09:12AM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> >Russ Allbery wrote:
> >So, here's a possibly weird proposal.
> >
> >What if we had some mechanism whereby people could indicate interest in
> >maintaining a package should anything happen to the current maintainer?
> >Have it be a
>Russ Allbery wrote:
>So, here's a possibly weird proposal.
>
>What if we had some mechanism whereby people could indicate interest in
>maintaining a package should anything happen to the current maintainer?
>Have it be as non-confrontational as possible by having it not indicate
>any feeling about
On Tue, Mar 27, 2007 at 06:43:03PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Wed, 28 Mar 2007, Charles Plessy wrote:
>
> >> The maintainer is not MIA, but does not actively develop anymore.
>
> > Packages like this should have a message to the current maintaine
On Tue, Mar 27, 2007 at 06:43:03PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Wed, 28 Mar 2007, Charles Plessy wrote:
>
> >> The maintainer is not MIA, but does not actively develop anymore.
>
> > Packages like this should have a message to the current maintaine
Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, 28 Mar 2007, Charles Plessy wrote:
>> The maintainer is not MIA, but does not actively develop anymore.
> Packages like this should have a message to the current maintainer with
> a proposal to co-maintain or orphan+adopt followed by an ITH (int
On Wed, 28 Mar 2007, Charles Plessy wrote:
> The maintainer is not MIA, but does not actively develop anymore.
Packages like this should have a message to the current maintainer
with a proposal to co-maintain or orphan+adopt followed by an ITH
(intent to hijack) if there is no response within a re
d Tue, Mar 27, 2007 at 02:19:45PM -0400, Matthias Julius a écrit :
> "cobaco (aka Bart Cornelis)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >Automatically orphaning such packages has problems as Russel pointed out,
> >but a "needs co-maintainers"/"needs hijacking" list of packages where
> >DD's
Mark Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This proposal strikes me as being similar to some of the push for team
> maintained packages - we need to be careful to avoid focusing so much on
> the metrics we're using to measure quality of maintenance that we end up
> optimising them without getting an
Roberto C Sánchez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> But then what happens in the case (that was already pointed out) where a
> bug languishes without attention for a year or more, someone NMUs to fix
> the bug and the mainainer immediately uploads to revert the NMU? It
> seems that there needs to be
On Tue, Mar 27, 2007 at 03:06:17PM -0400, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote:
> But then what happens in the case (that was already pointed out) where a
> bug languishes without attention for a year or more, someone NMUs to fix
> the bug and the mainainer immediately uploads to revert the NMU? It
> seems t
On Tue, Mar 27, 2007 at 02:19:45PM -0400, Matthias Julius wrote:
> "cobaco (aka Bart Cornelis)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >Automatically orphaning such packages has problems as Russel pointed out,
> >but a "needs co-maintainers"/"needs hijacking" list of packages where
> >DD's ca
"cobaco (aka Bart Cornelis)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>Automatically orphaning such packages has problems as Russel pointed out,
>but a "needs co-maintainers"/"needs hijacking" list of packages where
>DD's can be more aggressive in jumping/taking over in seems a good idea
>IMO.
On Tue, Mar 27, 2007 at 10:47:38AM +, Sune Vuorela wrote:
> On 2007-03-27, Roberto C Sánchez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > In fact, yes. More so, even. The higher the bug count the *greater*
> > the reward for triaging everything properly. It helps to prevent
> > getting mired in a sea of
On Tuesday 27 March 2007, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 27, 2007 at 01:27:55PM +0200, cobaco (aka Bart Cornelis)
wrote:
> > On Tuesday 27 March 2007, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > > *what's* in it. Just because it has a patch tag doesn't mean it's
> > > necessarily any higher-quality of a bug unless
On Tue, Mar 27, 2007 at 01:27:55PM +0200, cobaco (aka Bart Cornelis) wrote:
> On Tuesday 27 March 2007, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > *what's* in it. Just because it has a patch tag doesn't mean it's
> > necessarily any higher-quality of a bug unless it's been triaged.
> It may not be higher quality,
On Mon, Mar 26, 2007 at 08:17:19PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> I'm willing to support being more aggressive than we currently are about
> changing maintainers when someone else steps up and is willing to do the
> work, but I'm not willing to support any proposal that automatically
> orphans packa
On Tuesday 27 March 2007, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > If so, what action do you think should be taken in the case where those
> > bug reports are not addressed by the package maintainer?
>
> Someone should triage the bug and remove the tag if the patch isn't
> adequate. An untriaged bug is an untriage
On 2007-03-27, Roberto C Sánchez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In fact, yes. More so, even. The higher the bug count the *greater*
> the reward for triaging everything properly. It helps to prevent
> getting mired in a sea of bugs.
We still miss around 600 bugs in our backlog:
http://users.alio
On Tue, Mar 27, 2007 at 08:12:07AM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 26, 2007 at 09:38:24PM -0400, Roberto C. Sánchez <[EMAIL
> PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > People should be given assistance and encouragement in
> > > doing it. I actually like doing it, but I have unfortunately relatively
> > >
On Tue, Mar 27, 2007, Mike Hommey wrote:
> > I like doing bug triage as well. I guess it is because I am a neat
> > freak and anal about organization.
>
> Would you still like it if the bug count for one package would number in
> hundreds ?
It's easy to have a huge backlog. I believe a more
On Mon, Mar 26, 2007 at 09:38:24PM -0400, Roberto C. Sánchez <[EMAIL
PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > People should be given assistance and encouragement in
> > doing it. I actually like doing it, but I have unfortunately relatively
> > little time (sick family members).
> >
> I like doing bug triage as w
Ben Finney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> If that person has showed up and is being blocked from helping for some
>> reason, *then* we can talk.
> I think that's what the proposal is suggesting. Do you think the metric
> used is bad, or is there some oth
Roberto C. Sánchez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Out of curiousity, what is the algorithm for determining whether a patch
>has been reviewed? If it is not an algorithm, per se, then what is the
>heuristic?
If the maintainer has sent a message to the bug trail mentioning the patch
sometime after th
Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If no one has time to work on a package, orphaning the package
> doesn't make it better.
In that case, orphaning the package doesn't make it better.
I think Nathaniel was describing the case where people *do* have the
time, and indeed are proposing fixe
Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I've been reading the discussion and trying to thresh something out
> of it.
Thanks very much for taking the time to do this. A summary of a long
thread is useful.
> Four points and one proposal.
I agree with all the points.
I won't comment on the
Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Actually, after describing the worst-case scenario, I am going to make a
> new tentative proposal:
>
> If a package has a bug with a *patch* attached, where the *patch* has
> not been reviewed on by the maintainer(s) within six months, the packa
On Mon, Mar 26, 2007 at 09:12:32PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
>
>
> If a package has a bug with a *patch* attached, where the *patch* has not
> been reviewed on by the maintainer(s) within six months, the package will
> be orphaned immediately; the maintainer will not be allowed to adopt
I've been reading the discussion and trying to thresh something out of it.
Four points and one proposal.
Point 1.
---
Contrary to some assumptions, answering "I got your bug report but I can't deal
with it right now" is *very* useful, particularly in encouraging people to help.
I've reported
31 matches
Mail list logo
