Packages with inactive owners orphaned and inactive comaintainers removed

Ralf Corsepius rc040203 at freenet.de
Fri Jan 13 05:01:03 UTC 2012


On 01/11/2012 10:07 AM, Petr Pisar wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 09:51:32AM +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>> On 01/11/2012 09:26 AM, Marcela Mašláňová wrote:
>>> On 01/11/2012 05:18 AM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
>>>> Note that the perl-sig pseudo-user could own the packages if the perl-sig
>>>> wants to continue maintaining them and doesn't want them orphaned. That
>>>> works right now. What it wouldn't grant is commit rights to the packages.
>>>>
>>> So, pseudo-user wouldn't work well...
>> I don't see any reason why it would not.
>>
> What about regular PGP key and password changes?  Wouldn't perl-sig find guilty
> on next clean-up and removed of the ownership?
I don't understand what you are trying to express.

>> perl-sig mails go to the perl mailing list, anybody interested can listen
>> and step in. It's what several persons who are subscribed to the perl-list
>> seem to have done for a long time - E.g. I do.
>>
> Only the ones who are rights to commit.
?!? All mails stemming from packages with perl-sig as maintainer or 
co-maintainer would have to go to the perl-devel list.

>> I.e. to sum up: Actually nothing would change to you and nothing would
>> change many of the "perl-sig" maintainers.
>>
> There would be a problem that nobody would be personally responsible for
> a package.
You are presuming there is a need to have a personal "responsibility".

The purpose of "collaborative maintenance" is to abandon this tie and to 
replace it with a "group responsibility".

> Also there could be problems with synchronisation between
> unassigned volunteering perl-sig members.
Sure, ... but in practice, coordination of such efforts rarely is a 
problem in case of "incident response". They are typicallly resolved via 
bugzilla or email.

> I think it's better when each package is owned by a real person.
I don't agree. Like in real life, all tasks beyond a certain size 
require to team up and can not be handled by single individuals anymore.

That said, to me, maintaining several hundreds of perl packages by 
single individuals is impossible and inevitably requires to team up.

Surely, for you, a person, whom I assume to be being paid full time for 
maintaining perl packages, the threshold of number of perl-packages you 
can handle is higher than that of  people (like me), who do so as 
volunteered side-job in their spare time. Nevertheless your 
capabilities/resources are limited also.

Ralf


More information about the perl-devel mailing list