> > > Keeping the big pseudo-category split doesn't make much sense as most
> > > of the packages can't be fit easily into a specific group and it only
> > > confuses users. GNOME & KDE aren't very clear either, especially for
> > > non-core packages (like: is systemd a GNOME package?). Having them
> > > skip bug-wranglers doesn't sound really helpful.
> >
> > Keeping the big desktop environments would be nice; anything that is a
> > large, logical group of packages maintained by one team.
> >
> > Like, auto-assigning kde to kde and gnome to gnome.
> >
> > Of course upstream doesn't really help with their destructive tendencies.
> > ("There is no KDE5, only Frameworks, Plasma and Applications.")
>
> But there are non-core KDE apps that are not maintained by KDE team,
> and GNOME apps that are not maintained by GNOME team. Users usually
> don't check maintainers before choosing a component...
Well, the point of having a default assignee of categories is to remove load
from the bug wranglers. [*]
(Who haven't pitched in yet here afaics, maybe we should hear them out.)
I see a value for a separate category if there is
1) a user-recognizable large group of packages
2) that is to an overwhelming degree maintained (or at least co-maintained) by
one project.
About 1), examples would be
* the packages of a large desktop environment (like KDE, Gnome, ...)
* the packages of fringe languages (like Haskell, Erlang, Java, ... :)
About 2) - even if a few packages are maintained by other people, the
"wrangling" can be done by the project - who probably also know better what
info to look for compared to the bugwranglers
[*] No, I'm NOT opposed to bug auto-assignment. I just think we should run and
test it first, and once we've concluded that it works fine, then tear down our
old auxiliary constructs.
Usually you don't tear down the old bridge over the river before building the
new one.
--
Andreas K. Huettel
Gentoo Linux developer
dilfri...@gentoo.org
http://www.akhuettel.de/
