Steve Langasek <vor...@debian.org> 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 then incumbent on the person looking >> > to orphan the package to rattle the cage and get developers to pay >> > attention. > >> On the other hand, it is already hard to find people willing to review >> other peoples work. Mandating acks means trusting that there will be >> enough manpower to review something potentially unknown. I can't see >> that happening reliably. It also makes the process a whole lot more >> complicated than it needs to be, > > No, it makes the process based on *consensus*, which is a minimum > requirement.
It also means that the salvager has to do more work. By the time we get to salvaging, other means of getting the package fixed/updated have already been exhausted - that's quite a lot of work already, and by that time, it should be very clear that salvaging is the way to go forward. I do agree that the salvager should seek consensus, and should make a reasonable effort to get some feedback on his/her intention, BUT I would not make that mandatory (seeking acks - yes; not being able to go forward until N acks - no), as that will stall the process for far too long in case of less popular packages (and as far as I see, those less popular packages would benefit most from the salvaging process). THAT is what I'm concerned about. And seriously, if noone ACKs or NACKs a salvaging proposal for an extended period of time, to me, that means noone cares enough. If noone cares, noone minds, then I would put my trust behind the developer, to know what he's doing, and let him proceed. Would a mistake be made, that can always be corrected. >> which in turn allows the package to suffer unmaintainance longer, >> decreasing the distributions overall quality. > >> As said elsewhere in the thread, the process needs to be easy and >> efficient. Hunting ACKs is neither easy, nor efficient. > > The debian-qa list served this purpose fine for *years*. It's not > acceptable to use handwavy assertions about manpower to justify an > antisocial process. If the debian-qa list continues to serve this purpose well, then there is no issue: we'll never see the case I'm worried about, and I'll be the happiest person on earth. If we do end up in such situations, though... -- |8] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87wqyeaie2.fsf@algernon.balabit
