<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 01/23/2014 04:27 PM, Rahul Sundaram
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAHc5q3dr4jQ67wYz9pr+Xkgo9x1D-1XQGjJVgEOc_v7-cb+VyA@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">Hi<br>
<div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 11:08 AM,
"Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" <span dir="ltr"></span>wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div class="im"><br>
On 01/23/2014 03:55 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0
0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc
solid;padding-left:1ex">
> >So, one possibility would be to move
less-maintained packages to a separate<br>
> >repository tree still included as
Fedora and enabled by default<br>
</blockquote>
>That wont reduce the bugs reported against
it...<br>
</blockquote>
That's not necessarily bad. And by categorizing
those bugs separately, it<br>
would be easier to treat them differently.<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
We dont want QA community members
testers/reporters/triagers ( and general end users )
wasting their contributed time reporting bugs that wont
get fixed.<br>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Who is we? <br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Obviously not you...<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAHc5q3dr4jQ67wYz9pr+Xkgo9x1D-1XQGjJVgEOc_v7-cb+VyA@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div>
</div>
<div>Just because upstream is inactive doesn't mean that
there are bugs and just because upstream is inactive
doesn't mean package maintainers won't fix bug reports.</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
If a package maintainer fixes bug the package is no longer inactive
since it's being actively maintained which is what matters
regardless if upstream or just downstream with us... <br>
<br>
Quite frankly it amazes me how much people put themselves on a
pedestole for maintaining a component in a distribution and at the
same time either fail to understand or simply disregard the
time,resources and scope the service sub-community as well as
feature owners have to put into that component. <br>
<br>
QA/Releng/Infra/Doc all have to spend contributed time and resources
into that same component for the duration of the lifetime of the
component in the distribution which more often than not, is long
time after it's maintainer has "vanished" or the component simply is
no longer being maintained downstream/upstream...<br>
<br>
And all of the above is *beside* the negative effect such components
have on end users that expect it to work since it's available to
them through an application installer of any kind.<br>
<br>
How much time would it have saved Richard not having to go through
those dead or semi-dead components and how willing do you think
people are jumping to assist him when they know there is 40% that
the time they are contribute to that work will be for nothing since
those app apps are dead or semi-dead upstream?<br>
<br>
To me this is pure community resources leakage due to distribution
litterers with the mentality of packaging *everything* regardless if
upstream is dead or not because it works for *them*.<br>
<br>
JBG<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>