From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from [80.91.229.2] (helo=ciao.gmane.org) by linuxtogo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1LjevV-0007E5-0p for openembedded-devel@openembedded.org; Tue, 17 Mar 2009 20:26:49 +0100 Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1Ljeuj-0000Y8-G0 for openembedded-devel@openembedded.org; Tue, 17 Mar 2009 19:25:25 +0000 Received: from s55917625.adsl.wanadoo.nl ([85.145.118.37]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 17 Mar 2009 19:25:25 +0000 Received: from k.kooi by s55917625.adsl.wanadoo.nl with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 17 Mar 2009 19:25:25 +0000 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: openembedded-devel@openembedded.org From: Koen Kooi Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2009 20:25:14 +0100 Message-ID: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: s55917625.adsl.wanadoo.nl User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.5; en-US; rv:1.9.1b3pre) Gecko/20090225 Shredder/3.0b3pre In-Reply-To: Sender: news X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 80.91.229.2 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: gcho-openembedded-devel@m.gmane.org X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.5 (2008-06-10) on serenity X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW, RDNS_NONE, SPF_HELO_PASS, SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.2.5 X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2.1 (built Wed, 25 Jun 2008 17:14:11 +0000) X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on linuxtogo.org) Subject: Re: Package Maintenance X-BeenThere: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list Reply-To: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org List-Id: Using the OpenEmbedded metadata to build Distributions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2009 19:26:56 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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