Web lists-archives.com

Re: Bug#798476: Returning to the requirement that Uploaders: contain humans

On Wed, Aug 02, 2017 at 05:48:15PM -0400, Sean Whitton wrote:
> I've also included a purely informative change which emphasises that
> packages that are team maintained in name only should be orphaned
> properly, with their maintainer field set to the QA team.  This is
> already current best practice, but it's worth emphasising, because one
> might fail to orphan a package on the grounds that "someone else on the
> team might fix it", which is not true of a lot of teams.
> @@ -1149,6 +1142,12 @@
>            </para>
>          </footnote>
>        </para>
> +      <para>
> +        This includes packages with a group of people or team in the
> +        <literal>Maintainer</literal> control field.  They should be
> +        orphaned if the team is not actively maintaining the package.
> +      </para>
> +
>      </section>
>      <section id="s-descriptions">

Please be more thoughtful about the consequences of such changes to policy.

This would not be "a purely informative change".

Your suggested wording has the potential to create a HUGE amount of tensions.

I could name a lot of team-maintained packages where a team member 
uploads a new upstream version every 1-2 years and noone ever bothers
to handle incoming bugs.[1]

If policy does not provide a definition of "actively maintaining",
it would be a reasonable interpretation to consider a package with
no upload or visible activity in new open bugs during the past
6 or 12 months as not actively maintained.

If policy states that such packages "should be orphaned" without 
describing a proper process, it is a valid reading that everyone can do 
this without trying to contact the team prior to orphaning the package.

And it does not even help with the problem Tobias raised:

When a maintainer retires or is declared MIA by the MIA team according 
to the MIA process, how can you *find* all teams and team-maintained 
packages where this maintainer was the only or last active team member
when there is no Uploaders: field?

This information could be moved from the Uploaders: field to
a database, but then this database has to exist and maintaining
the information there has to be mandatory when no Uploaders: field
is present.

Another option would be to keep the Uploaders: requirement,
but make it more clear that autogenerating is permitted.

The GNOME team already generates Uploaders: as the intersection
of current team members and people who did the latest 10 uploads
of a package.


[1] a few people are IMHO just bad maintainers, but in the common
    case there is simply too much work for too few people in a
    volunteer project and new team members are always welcome


       "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
        of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
       "Only a promise," Lao Er said.
                                       Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed