Patrice Dumas <pertusus@xxxxxxx> wrote: > On Sun, Feb 10, 2008 at 01:32:50PM -0900, Jeff Spaleta wrote: > > On Feb 10, 2008 11:30 AM, Patrice Dumas <pertusus@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > 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. > > What about we also put a branch expiration latch on the ratio of > > maintainers to packages that must be maintained as part of UAEL? > The number of package is (almost) never a good metric. Indeed some > packages are quite hard to maintain (the kernel for example) while > others are easy to maintain, either because they are simple. Also some > packages may be kept synchronized with a fedora version. The kernel may > not be that hard to maintain, in the end, if the kernel of a stable > fedora release can be used as soon as a security issue is found. And how do you propose to measure that? AFAIU, that hasn't been determined for Fedora now. And an older package means more work backporting fixes. > > Require the number of total number of maintainers to packages in UAEL > > to be above some reasonable bar. And additionally require that each > > maintainer of a 'core' UAEL package keep their load with respect to > > UAEL below a certain number of packages. > That looks like a possible idea. What we could do is ask the maintainer > for the time he has to devote to UAEL, Who guarantees that nobody has delusions about the time available to them? > and assign weights to packages > based on their complexity and easyness to update following fedora > packages. Who does the weighting? > But, first, we should do that in fedora proper before, and second I > don't thinkt hat the result will be much more reliable. Right. But as was said, Fedora has its own regulation: It times out at EOL. Developers/package maintainers plan for that and move on. > > The goal would be to minimize a situation where a small number of > > people are being overwhelmed and getting into a situation where things > > a spread too thin for a long period of time after initial interest in > > the branch as dropped. > Once again it is the same in fedora. There is an obvious difference, > there can be more branches in UAEL, but more branch doesn't necessarily > mean more work, if they can be kept synchronized when security issues > are discovered (and it is more or less the plan for UAEL). What is the use of a Fedora 8 after EOL if any packages with significant problems are simply taken from later Fedoras? I for one wouldn't trust such a chimaera, I'd prefer just taking the later version of the distribution in that case. The whole point of a distribution for me is that it gives me a coherent set of packages that "somebody" has checked that they work well together. -- Dr. Horst H. von Brand User #22616 counter.li.org Departamento de Informatica Fono: +56 32 2654431 Universidad Tecnica Federico Santa Maria +56 32 2654239 Casilla 110-V, Valparaiso, Chile Fax: +56 32 2797513 -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
