[oe] Package Maintenance

[Frans Meulenbroeks]

2009/3/17 Koen Kooi <k.kooi at student.utwente.nl>:
> On 17-03-09 20:18, Chris Larson wrote:
>>
>> I'd like to propose re-establishing MAINTAINER, set per package, to
>> individuals, or left as default for packages which aren't directly
>> maintained.
>>
>> Doing this would:
>> - Facilitate dumping a list of unmaintained packages to give to new
>> users wanting to volunteer to help us, but not knowing how to
>> contribute.
>> - Return some individual responsibility to the project, giving one
>> person the blame for brokenness for that package, as well as giving
>> responsibility for pushing patches upstream to that person.  In my
>> opinion, a number of the recent issues in the project are due, in
>> part, to a lack of that individual responsibility.  Everything is
>> fuzzy, determined by a group, instead.
>> - Allow us to physically separate, in the repository, those packages
>> which get the most attention (are maintained) from those which get the
>> least (maintained by the entire team).  We could finally be *honest*
>> with our users about what we work on, telling them that the packages
>> which are maintained by the team are in need of an individual
>> maintainer, and get less attention, so bugs there will be fixed more
>> slowly, and there are no guarantees on functionality there.  I think
>> it'd be better to have a core set of *functional* recipes than have a
>> huge set of "might work, might not" recipes as things stand today.  In
>> my opinion, this would be more likely to give new users stability than
>> creating a stable branch, while making better use of our limited
>> manpower, rather than increasing the load drastically.
>>
>> Opinions?
>
> As long as it doesn't get put in resulting packages in any way, it's fine by
> me.
>
> regards,
>
> Koen
>

Agree with koen

FM