On Mon, 29 Oct 2012 00:21:41 Thomas Goirand wrote:
> On 10/27/2012 04:47 AM, Dmitry Smirnov wrote:
> > For example if package is not maintained for years we can certainly wait
> > for a month or two before orphaning even though there may be no need to
> > wait that long.
>
> This unfortunately can
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 06:24:24PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > Similarly, Steve: can you comment on the criticism of "voting" on
> > packages, why don't you see it as a problem?
[…]
> *I am not proposing a new process*. This was the process that was
> used for *years* via debian-qa. But, ev
On 10/27/2012 04:47 AM, Dmitry Smirnov wrote:
For example if package is not maintained for years we can certainly wait for a
month or two before orphaning even though there may be no need to wait that
long.
This unfortunately cannot be set as a rule. Sometimes, a package that was
left unmaintain
Scott Kitterman (27/10/2012):
> If the maintainer never responds, then (it turns out) there was no
> need for the delay. So there are cases where delay is pointless,
> the problem is that you can't tell in advance if you're in one of
> those cases or not.
Thankfully, nothing stops anyone from NM
On Friday, October 26, 2012 11:09:18 PM Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 27, 2012 at 04:18:26AM +, Bart Martens wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 06:24:24PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > > - There does need to be a mandatory minimum waiting period. This
> > > process
> > >
> > >
On Sat, Oct 27, 2012 at 04:18:26AM +, Bart Martens wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 06:24:24PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > - There does need to be a mandatory minimum waiting period. This process
> >is going to be seen as "blessed" via the devref; we should not be
> >blessing a p
Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 05:17:10PM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> > On 10/25/2012 02:48 AM, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > >On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 01:57:12AM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> > >>I remember when I started a thread about 6 months ago,
> > >>willing to take over main
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 06:24:24PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> So in sum, I'm broadly in favor of Lucas's patch, except:
>
> - A single nack is evidence of a lack of consensus. If consensus can't be
>achieved, it should be referred to the TC instead of making a political
>mess of thin
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 05:17:10PM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> On 10/25/2012 02:48 AM, Steve Langasek wrote:
> >On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 01:57:12AM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> >>I remember when I started a thread about 6 months ago,
> >>willing to take over maintainership of a clearly unmainta
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 09:58:54PM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 01:47:52PM -0400, Patrick Ouellette wrote:
> [...]
> > All the pings in the world won't help if you are sending them via
> > a path that discards them. I know several large US ISPs that automatically
> > rejec
Hi Zack,
On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 11:19:34PM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 05:19:37PM +, Sune Vuorela wrote:
> > 1) report a bug 'should this package be orphaned?' against the package
> > with a more or less defalut templated text and a serious severity
> > 2) sleep
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 8:19 PM, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 07:33:27PM -0400, Michael Gilbert wrote:
>
>> We already orphan packages without the maintainer's consent, and it's
>> already called "orphaning".
>
>> Salvaging is still undefined
>
> No, it is not. The definition wa
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 07:33:27PM -0400, Michael Gilbert wrote:
> We already orphan packages without the maintainer's consent, and it's
> already called "orphaning".
> Salvaging is still undefined
No, it is not. The definition was clear from the first use of the term.
Stop trying to redefine i
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 6:06 PM, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 03:10:30PM -0400, Michael Gilbert wrote:
>> On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 12:51 AM, Steve Langasek wrote:
>> > On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 07:45:35PM -0400, Michael Gilbert wrote:
>> >> I think this is where language is importa
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 03:10:30PM -0400, Michael Gilbert wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 12:51 AM, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 07:45:35PM -0400, Michael Gilbert wrote:
> >> I think this is where language is important. In my opinion, the term
> >> "adoption" will continue to
On Sat, 27 Oct 2012 01:51:57 Ian Jackson wrote:
> I still think that the right standard is "no objection" rather than
> collecting some explicit number of acks. In particular I don't think
> any number of acks ought to override a nack from the existing
> maintainer.
>
Indeed. I think lack of eno
On Sat, 27 Oct 2012 00:40:26 Bart Martens wrote:
> > So why not agree now that the maintainer can veto the process?
>
> Because this would raise the question "how long should we wait for the
> maintainer to object or to remain silent". In obvious cases, for example
> when the package has clearly
On Fri, 26 Oct 2012 16:56:02 Bart Martens wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 08:06:57AM +1100, Dmitry Smirnov wrote:
> > If bug was unanswered for let's say two months the package is free to
> > orphan
>
> Some prefer no delay, some prefer one month, some prefer two months. I
> originally wanted on
On 10/26/2012 05:07 PM, Bart Martens wrote:
People interested in salvaging an unmaintained package are discouraged by the
current procedures. The new procedure is meant to add a lightweight procedure
to mark unmaintained packages as orphaned, so that anyone interested can adopt
them without need
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 12:51 AM, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 07:45:35PM -0400, Michael Gilbert wrote:
>> I think this is where language is important. In my opinion, the term
>> "adoption" will continue to mean taking on full responsibility for a
>> package as its new maintaine
Bart Martens writes ("Re: [SUMMARY/PROPOSAL] Orphaning another maintainer's
packages - skipping pointless delay"):
> On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 02:50:46PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > 3. Wait for objections
>
> For how long ? The proposal includes collecting ACKs
Russ Allbery writes ("Re: [SUMMARY/PROPOSAL] Orphaning another maintainer's
packages"):
> I think orphaned packages are one of our best opportunities to attract new
> developers, rather than serving as an additional obligation for existing
> developers. [etc.]
Thanks for
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 09:17:13AM -0400, Nikolaus Rath wrote:
> Russ Allbery writes:
> > Well, that's what I was trying to get at: I think your method puts too
> > many barriers in the way of someone who wants to take over an effectively
> > abandoned package. It also requires *more* skill than
On Friday, October 26, 2012 01:40:26 PM Bart Martens wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 01:58:55PM +0200, Thibaut Paumard wrote:
> > Le 26/10/2012 08:46, Bart Martens a écrit :
> > > On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 12:45:21PM -0400, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> > >> Gergely Nagy wrote: AIUI, with the current
>
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 01:58:55PM +0200, Thibaut Paumard wrote:
> Le 26/10/2012 08:46, Bart Martens a écrit :
> > On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 12:45:21PM -0400, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> >> Gergely Nagy wrote: AIUI, with the current
> >> proposal, as long as three DDs think it should be orphaned, the
>
Russ Allbery writes:
> Michael Gilbert writes:
>> On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 8:18 PM, Russ Allbery wrote:
>
>>> Okay, well, I guess I return to my previous statement, then. I don't
>>> think your proposed solution will work for the more common cases.
>
>> I respect your opinion, so I'm just curious
Bart Martens wrote:
>On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 12:45:21PM -0400, Scott Kitterman wrote:
>> Gergely Nagy wrote:
>> >Ian Jackson writes:
>> >> Whether a package is in need of greater attention is not a hard
>and
>> >> fast objective thing. It's to a large part subjective. Perhaps
>the
>> >> mai
Bart Martens wrote:
>On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 09:06:34AM -0400, Scott Kitterman wrote:
>> Why not start with a "without objection" standard and see how it
>works?
>
>The "without objection" approach would require a reasonable delay for
>people to
>raise objections (some say two months). The ACK
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Le 26/10/2012 08:46, Bart Martens a écrit :
> On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 12:45:21PM -0400, Scott Kitterman wrote:
>> Gergely Nagy wrote: AIUI, with the current
>> proposal, as long as three DDs think it should be orphaned, the
>> maintainer's objection
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Le 26/10/2012 08:35, vangelis mouhtsis a écrit :
> Hi, I'm wondering, before a package will be orphaned is it
> possible/ needful the owner to ask for help or to express the
> reasons?
>
> Regards gnugr
http://www.debian.org/devel/wnpp/
Look for "R
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 09:48:18AM +0200, Gergely Nagy wrote:
> why would it hurt
> to bake in a worst-case scenario with no acks or nacks? (I can accept
> defaulting to no too, after a timeout, as long as there's one. I would
> find the result pointless and silly, but at least it puts an end to it
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 09:59:16AM +0200, Gergely Nagy wrote:
> Bart Martens writes:
>
> >> > I think that sufficient DDs will review the ITOs. Note that most work is
> >> > already done by the ITO submitter. Sponsoring a package at mentors
> >> > ("review
> >> > other peoples work") is, in my
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 04:12:03PM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> On 10/26/2012 01:09 PM, Bart Martens wrote:
> >I expect the cc to debian-qa to draw sufficient DD's attention.
> >And the ACKs are about agreeing on marking a package as orphaned.
> >That's the easy part. The salvaging part goes via
Bart Martens writes:
>> > I think that sufficient DDs will review the ITOs. Note that most work is
>> > already done by the ITO submitter. Sponsoring a package at mentors
>> > ("review
>> > other peoples work") is, in my opinion, much more work than reading an ITO
>> > and
>> > sending an ACK
On 10/26/2012 01:09 PM, Bart Martens wrote:
I expect the cc to debian-qa to draw sufficient DD's attention. And
the ACKs are about agreeing on marking a package as orphaned. That's
the easy part. The salvaging part goes via the existing ITA procedure.
That's the hard part. Regards, Bart Martens
Steve Langasek writes:
>> > > No, it makes the process based on *consensus*, which is a minimum
>> > > requirement.
>
>> > It also means that the salvager has to do more work.
>
>> I expect the cc to debian-qa to draw sufficient DD's attention. And the
>> ACKs are about agreeing on marking a pac
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 10:05:40PM +, Jean-Michel Vourgère wrote:
> When fixing non important bugs, or improving the package quality, like
> switching to format 3 source, arranging the rules file, and so on, I fear
> it will be very difficult to find a sponsor for these nmus.
>
> Having 3/1 (1
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 03:09:55PM -0400, Michael Gilbert wrote:
> 2. Salvager uploads liberal (10-day delayed) nmus as needed to bring
> the package into a better maintained state.
Lucas' proposal discussed in this thread is about adding a lightweight
procedure to mark obviously unm
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 12:45:21PM -0400, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> Gergely Nagy wrote:
> >Ian Jackson writes:
> >> Whether a package is in need of greater attention is not a hard and
> >> fast objective thing. It's to a large part subjective. Perhaps the
> >> maintainer thinks it's more or less
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 03:52:36PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Whether a package is in need of greater attention is not a hard and
> fast objective thing. It's to a large part subjective. Perhaps the
> maintainer thinks it's more or less fine, or at least low enough
> priority that the problems a
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 04:20:43PM +0200, Thibaut Paumard wrote:
> If someone notices that a package is in need of greater attention, but
> cannot commit to attending it themselves, it's important that the
> packages is marked at least as needing help.
>
> I understand the entire point here is to
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 02:50:46PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> I'm also not that keen on the idea that the outcome is to orphan the
> package.
Orphaning the package it not the final outcome. The goal is to get packages
salvaged. See the "two activities" explained here:
http://lists.debian.org/de
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 09:06:34AM -0400, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> Why not start with a "without objection" standard and see how it works?
The "without objection" approach would require a reasonable delay for people to
raise objections (some say two months). The ACK/NACK approach allows to reach
Hi Lucas,
As you know I agree with you on most aspects.
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 10:10:09AM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> I find third-party reviews
> and ACKs a good way to reinforce the feeling that the orphaning is the
> right thing to do.
Absolutely.
> Note that it's often users who
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 08:06:57AM +1100, Dmitry Smirnov wrote:
> If bug was unanswered for let's say two months the package is free to orphan
Some prefer no delay, some prefer one month, some prefer two months. I
originally wanted one month, but I got convinced by others to drop the delay.
Now
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 05:09:07AM +, Bart Martens wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 01:41:25PM +0200, Gergely Nagy wrote:
> > Steve Langasek writes:
> > > On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 01:58:16PM +0200, Gergely Nagy wrote:
> > >> Someone wrote:
> > >> > I disagree on this point. If you can't get an
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 09:51:12PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 07:45:35PM -0400, Michael Gilbert wrote:
> > I think this is where language is important. In my opinion, the term
> > "adoption" will continue to mean taking on full responsibility for a
> > package as its ne
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 01:50:10PM +0200, Gergely Nagy wrote:
> Bart Martens writes:
> > On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 01:58:16PM +0200, Gergely Nagy wrote:
> >> Steve Langasek writes:
> >>
> >> > On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 02:40:39PM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> >> >> > 4. When/if consensus has be
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 01:41:25PM +0200, Gergely Nagy wrote:
> Steve Langasek writes:
> > On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 01:58:16PM +0200, Gergely Nagy wrote:
> >> Someone wrote:
> >> > I disagree on this point. If you can't get anyone to ack that you
> >> > should go
> >> > ahead with the orphaning,
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 07:45:35PM -0400, Michael Gilbert wrote:
> I think this is where language is important. In my opinion, the term
> "adoption" will continue to mean taking on full responsibility for a
> package as its new maintainer. The term "salvage", in my opinion, we
> can define as a p
Michael Gilbert writes:
> Don't we expect the same adaptability of anyone trying to become a
> co-maintainer of any other package?
No, because in the typical comaintenance situation, the other maintainers
will teach the newcomer how to package according to the team standards,
rather than having
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 9:14 PM, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> I respect your opinion, so I'm just curious which part do you believe
>> won't work in common cases? It's just applying existing NMU rules with
>> a little more liberalism to increase activity in under-maintained
>> packages, so I personally
Michael Gilbert writes:
> On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 8:18 PM, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> Okay, well, I guess I return to my previous statement, then. I don't
>> think your proposed solution will work for the more common cases.
> I respect your opinion, so I'm just curious which part do you believe
> w
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 8:18 PM, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Michael Gilbert writes:
>> On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 7:52 PM, Russ Allbery wrote:
>
>>> I certainly have no objection to people doing this, but I'm not sure
>>> that's really what we're discussing here. I think the thread is more
>>> about the o
Michael Gilbert writes:
> On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 7:52 PM, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> I certainly have no objection to people doing this, but I'm not sure
>> that's really what we're discussing here. I think the thread is more
>> about the ongoing issue that we seem to have in Debian where the
>> ex
Michael Gilbert writes:
> Again, I think it comes down to language. If we view salvaging as a
> process that is initially meant to help the existing maintainer, then it
> makes sense to continue to work with the package as he/she intended.
> When the 3 month clock expires, and the salvager becom
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 7:19 PM, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> As I've said many times now, the liberal NMU would not be a license for
>> packaging style changes. In fact, no NMU is allowed to make those
>> changes (the fact that people are doing it is apparently a social issue,
>> and solutions to those
Michael Gilbert writes:
> As I've said many times now, the liberal NMU would not be a license for
> packaging style changes. In fact, no NMU is allowed to make those
> changes (the fact that people are doing it is apparently a social issue,
> and solutions to those are hard). It is instead more
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 6:50 PM, Arno Töll wrote:
> On 25.10.2012 21:09, Michael Gilbert wrote:
>> 2. Salvager uploads liberal (10-day delayed) nmus as needed to bring
>> the package into a better maintained state.
>
> Please let's not go that road. Mixing-up the concept of a bad main
On 25.10.2012 21:09, Michael Gilbert wrote:
> 2. Salvager uploads liberal (10-day delayed) nmus as needed to bring
> the package into a better maintained state.
Please let's not go that road. Mixing-up the concept of a bad maintained
package and the concept of NMUs together does not
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 6:15 PM, Michael Gilbert wrote:
>> When fixing non important bugs, or improving the package quality, like
>> switching to format 3 source, arranging the rules file, and so on, I fear
>> it will be very difficult to find a sponsor for these nmus.
>
> That is because those ch
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 6:05 PM, Jean-Michel Vourgère wrote:
> On Thursday 25 October 2012 19:09:55 Michael Gilbert wrote:
>> (...)
>> I would prefer to see even more autonomy for the salvager and less
>> bugging of various lists (ITPs on -devel are already distracting
>> enough). With that, I wou
On Thursday 25 October 2012 19:09:55 Michael Gilbert wrote:
> (...)
> I would prefer to see even more autonomy for the salvager and less
> bugging of various lists (ITPs on -devel are already distracting
> enough). With that, I would like to suggest rewriting steps 2-4 as:
> 2. Salvager uploa
I think this proposal is a little bit too complicated and not straightforward
enough.
Clearly we have two different situations:
* Maintainer is not active and we want to orphan a particular package.
(just to orphan without adoption)
For this case filing a bug "please orphan this package"
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 09:58:54PM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 01:47:52PM -0400, Patrick Ouellette wrote:
> [...]
> > All the pings in the world won't help if you are sending them via
> > a path that discards them. I know several large US ISPs that automatically
> > rejec
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 01:47:52PM -0400, Patrick Ouellette wrote:
[...]
> All the pings in the world won't help if you are sending them via
> a path that discards them. I know several large US ISPs that automatically
> reject what they consider SPAM without the customer's knowledge. If
> the sen
On Fri, 26 Oct 2012 06:09:55 Michael Gilbert wrote:
> I would prefer to see even more autonomy for the salvager and less
> bugging of various lists (ITPs on -devel are already distracting
> enough). With that, I would like to suggest rewriting steps 2-4 as:
>
> 2. Salvager uploads liberal (1
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 9:50 AM, Ian Jackson
wrote:
> Scott Kitterman writes ("Re: [SUMMARY/PROPOSAL] Orphaning another
> maintainer's packages"):
>> Why not start with a "without objection" standard and see how it
>> works?
>
> I absolutely agre
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 09:51:16AM +0200, Thibaut Paumard wrote:
>
> So yes, I say long silence from the entire community *including the
> package maintainer(s)* probably means it's safer to orphan the package
> than not. I would probably send a few pings during the one month
> period though. I wo
Gergely Nagy wrote:
>Ian Jackson writes:
>
>> Whether a package is in need of greater attention is not a hard and
>> fast objective thing. It's to a large part subjective. Perhaps the
>> maintainer thinks it's more or less fine, or at least low enough
>> priority that the problems are tolera
Ian Jackson writes:
> Whether a package is in need of greater attention is not a hard and
> fast objective thing. It's to a large part subjective. Perhaps the
> maintainer thinks it's more or less fine, or at least low enough
> priority that the problems are tolerable.
Then the maintainer has
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 03:00:11PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Andreas Tille writes ("Re: [SUMMARY/PROPOSAL] Orphaning another maintainer's
> packages"):
> > On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 10:10:09AM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > > However, so far, it seems that th
Thibaut Paumard writes ("Re: [SUMMARY/PROPOSAL] Orphaning another maintainer's
packages"):
> Le 25/10/2012 15:50, Ian Jackson a écrit :
> > I'm also not that keen on the idea that the outcome is to orphan
> > the package. The salvager should surely be a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Le 25/10/2012 15:50, Ian Jackson a écrit :
> I'm also not that keen on the idea that the outcome is to orphan
> the package. The salvager should surely be adding themselves as
> an Uploader.
Is that in addition to or instead of orphaning the packag
Andreas Tille writes ("Re: [SUMMARY/PROPOSAL] Orphaning another maintainer's
packages"):
> On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 10:10:09AM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > However, so far, it seems that the discussion is split between people
> > that think "it would work&qu
Scott Kitterman writes ("Re: [SUMMARY/PROPOSAL] Orphaning another maintainer's
packages"):
> Why not start with a "without objection" standard and see how it
> works?
I absolutely agree with this.
If we adopt a "without objection" standard then the whole
On Thursday, October 25, 2012 10:15:48 AM Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> On 24/10/12 at 08:17 -0400, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> > That could work either way. If you're in such a rush to build consensus
> > you could change 3/1 ACK/NACK ratio to without objection (objections
> > result in disputes resolved
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 10:10:09AM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> However, so far, it seems that the discussion is split between people
> that think "it would work", and people that think "it would not work".
> Maybe we could try for a few months, and if it does not work, fix it?
+1
Kind regards
Bart Martens writes:
> On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 01:58:16PM +0200, Gergely Nagy wrote:
>> Steve Langasek writes:
>>
>> > On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 02:40:39PM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
>> >> > 4. When/if consensus has been reached, the package can be orphaned by
>> >> >retitling and reass
Steve Langasek writes:
> On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 01:58:16PM +0200, Gergely Nagy wrote:
>> > I disagree on this point. If you can't get anyone to ack that you should
>> > go
>> > ahead with the orphaning, then the system is not working as designed and
>> > consensus has not been achieved. It's
Steve Langasek writes:
>> So, what will you do if:
>> - previous maintainer goes MIA
>> - Somebody wants to hija^W salvage the package and starts the procedure
>> - Nobody votes for this to happen...
>
>> Should we then leave the package forever unmaintained?
>> I don't think this is reasonable..
On 10/25/2012 07:51 AM, Steve Langasek wrote:
No. We're talking here about silence *from the entire Debian developer
community* in response to a call for orphaning. That says nothing
about whether the package is orphaned. It may just mean you've managed
to send your request to the wrong place (
On 10/25/2012 02:48 AM, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 01:57:12AM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
I remember when I started a thread about 6 months ago,
willing to take over maintainership of a clearly unmaintained
package (since then, all other packages of this maintainer
have been
On 23/10/12 at 17:19 +, Sune Vuorela wrote:
> On 2012-10-23, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Here is an attempt at summarizing & building a proposal out of the
> > "Hijacking^W^W^W^W^W^WSalvaging packages for fun and profit: A proposal"
> > thread that was started at [1].
>
> Some years
On 24/10/12 at 08:17 -0400, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> That could work either way. If you're in such a rush to build consensus you
> could change 3/1 ACK/NACK ratio to without objection (objections result in
> disputes resolved by the tech ctte) and have a +1 from me.
>
> The problem is that onc
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Le 25/10/2012 01:51, Steve Langasek a écrit :
> On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 08:38:19AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
>> Le Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 09:46:08PM +, Clint Adams a écrit :
>>> On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 11:48:12AM -0700, Steve Langasek
>>> wrote:
2012/10/25 Steve Langasek
> It may just mean you've managed to send
> your request to the wrong place
>
As I see, almost all debian guys are so courteous that they point to the
right place.
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 08:38:19AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> Le Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 09:46:08PM +, Clint Adams a écrit :
> > On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 11:48:12AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > > Silence is not assent. That thread blew up because you proposed a
> > > *broken*
> > No, sil
Le Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 09:46:08PM +, Clint Adams a écrit :
> On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 11:48:12AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > Silence is not assent. That thread blew up because you proposed a *broken*
>
> No, silence is an indication that you don't deserve any decision-making
> power.
Hi
On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 11:48:12AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Silence is not assent. That thread blew up because you proposed a *broken*
No, silence is an indication that you don't deserve any decision-making
power.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a s
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 01:57:12AM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> I remember when I started a thread about 6 months ago,
> willing to take over maintainership of a clearly unmaintained
> package (since then, all other packages of this maintainer
> have been orphaned...). It (unwillingly) created a
On Wed, 2012-10-24 at 14:59:09 +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> So, what will you do if:
> - previous maintainer goes MIA
> - Somebody wants to hija^W salvage the package and starts the procedure
> - Nobody votes for this to happen...
They should use the already existing MIA process instead...
rega
On 10/25/2012 12:15 AM, Steve Langasek wrote:
No, it makes the process based on *consensus*, which is a minimum
requirement.
How many people should send ACKs in this system?
- If it's a lot of people, then it's hard to hunt for so many.
- If it's not a lot of people, then it hardly can be cal
On 10/25/2012 12:11 AM, Steve Langasek wrote:
And I don't think this is a realistic scenario. Why can't you find N
other DDs who agree with you that the package should be taken over?
Hum ... and what makes you think that it will always be easy
to find people to ACK? Making sure that a package i
On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 01:58:16PM +0200, Gergely Nagy wrote:
> Steve Langasek writes:
>
> > On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 02:40:39PM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> >> > 4. When/if consensus has been reached, the package can be orphaned by
> >> >retitling and reassigning the ITO bug accordingly
On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 01:58:16PM +0200, Gergely Nagy wrote:
> > I disagree on this point. If you can't get anyone to ack that you should go
> > ahead with the orphaning, then the system is not working as designed and
> > consensus has not been achieved. It's then incumbent on the person looking
On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 02:59:09PM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> On 10/24/2012 11:55 AM, Bart Martens wrote:
> >On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 01:40:16PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> >>>I fear a bit the situation "nobody care enough to comment", being
> >>>interpreted as lack of consensus. But I do thi
On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 02:59:09PM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> On 10/24/2012 11:55 AM, Bart Martens wrote:
> >On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 01:40:16PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> >>>I fear a bit the situation "nobody care enough to comment", being
> >>>interpreted as lack of consensus. But I do thi
Andreas Tille wrote:
>On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 05:32:25PM -0400, Scott Kitterman wrote:
>> I don't object to ACKs, but the requirement to get a certain ACK/NACK
>ratio. I see risk of this devolving into a popularity contest.
>>
>> I think it should either be unanimous or there is a dispute t
Steve Langasek writes:
> On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 02:40:39PM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
>> > 4. When/if consensus has been reached, the package can be orphaned by
>> >retitling and reassigning the ITO bug accordingly.
>
>> I fear a bit the situation "nobody care enough to comment", being
1 - 100 of 115 matches
Mail list logo
