[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: a plan for updates after end of life

On Sun, Feb 10, 2008 at 11:11:37AM -0900, Jeff Spaleta wrote:
> On Feb 10, 2008 10:31 AM, Patrice Dumas <pertusus free fr> wrote:
> > Although it is different, I can't see how it is different with regard
> > with control over bad maintainers. And I can't see why the processes
> > right for Fedora are not right here. If you have an idea how to solve
> > that issue in fedora, submit it to FESCo and it will certainly work in
> > UAEL too.
> I'm not trying to control individuals.. I'm trying to get a realistic
> conditions for any branch built under this proposal to every actually
> die.  Maintainership in name happens, it happens if Fedora right now
> and it will happen under your proposal. I'm not denying it.  The
> difference is, the timelines we have right now are not held hostage by
> this sort of crap.  Fedora release branches expire whether maintainers
> do the work or not.  

The fact that it expires doesn't make it less unmaintained. I still
can't see the difference. Not to mention that it doesn't really
expires since it is carried along in new releases. It lasts longer
in UAEL, but there is no real difference, the package is unmaintained, 

> I will not support a proposal which lets a branch
> continue until the heat death of the universe( which could be next
> year based on my local ambient temperature measurements) simply
> because someone's named is assigned to a package.  

If somebody uses the fedora processes to force orphaning a package, it
will be done. I really can't see why you want a specific process.

> If you are going to
> have an open ended branch cycle, then you need to propose more
> specific metrics on effort performed versus effort needed to keep the
> branch healthy and open.  

It is not something that can be easily done. The metric which makes the
most sense to me today is: has somebody brought an issue with the
maintainer work toward the relevant commitee (in that case I guess it
would be the UAEL SIG) and the commitee decided to orphan the package.
Just like in Fedora. Agreed it is not a perfect process, but there is no
reason to have a better one for UAEL.

> Just a name next to a package, isn't good
> enough as a metric to keep a branch open.

It is not a name. It is a fedora maintainer name.

In any case all you say is much more relevant to EPEL. Why don't you
raise this concern here?

If it is just a time length you want, we can say 5 years maximum of
updates. I think it will last shorter anyway, even with bad maintainers 
hiding their lack of care of packages.


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]