[MacPorts] #16551: p5-mac-carbon does not install without forcing (-f)

[Eric Hall]

On Thu, Oct 02, 2008 at 01:46:17PM +0200, C. Florian Ebeling wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 12:04 PM, Ryan Schmidt <ryandesign at macports.org> wrote:
> > On Oct 2, 2008, at 4:51 AM, Rainer M??ller wrote:
> >> Ryan Schmidt wrote:
> >>>
> >>> I think the discussion was about changing the maintainer timeout, not
> >>> abandoning it, but I don't think it got anywhere. It's still
> >>> documented in the Guide that if a maintainer does not respond to a
> >>> ticket in 72 hours, anybody else can take it, and I recommend still
> >>> following that rule.
> >>
> >> But it is also documented that if the maintainer does not respond in
> >> three weeks, the port should be considered abandoned.
> >>
> >> <http://guide.macports.org/#project.update-policies.abandonment>
> >>
> >> But if tickets are always picked up after 72h, there will never be the
> >> three weeks timeout and the unresponding maintainer will never be
> >> removed...
> >
> > Yes, I do agree the port abandonment procedure is in conflict with the
> > maintainer timeout rule. I think the timeout rule is fine; we just need a
> > better abandonment procedure.
> >
> > It currently says if a maintainer has not acknowledged a ticket within 3
> > weeks, then a new port abandonment ticket should be filed, and that the port
> > abandonment ticket can be acted upon immediately to assign a new maintainer.
> > I propose this be changed so that if there are n or more tickets about a
> > maintainer's ports that he has not acknowledged, and it has been more than
> > 72 hours since they were filed, then a new port abandonment ticket should be
> > filed and assigned to the maintainer. If the maintainer does not respond to
> > that ticket within 3 weeks, then the port is considered abandoned. n could
> > be some number between, say, 2 and 5. How about a nice round 3?
> 
> the number of ports this maintainer is responsible for has to
> go into the equation as well I guess. Otherwise one-port-maintainers
> have indefinite grace period :)
> 
> but to be honest I find this whole Abandonment procedure a bit draconian
> and scary. Why not just make a rule that says that after more than 72 hours
> a port becomes openmaintainer? maybe that was discussed already in the
> other thread, though. but I would not really file abandonment to fix a bug
> in a port I'm marginally interested in.

	I think making a port openmaintainer after 72 hours is a bad idea,
think about a time when a maintainer is on vacation for a week.  The idea of
filing an abandonment ticket and assigning it to the maintainer makes sense
to me when there's an indication that the maintainer isn't responding to
outstanding tickets against a port.  The three week grace period covers most
cases of vacations and the like (not sure how we let people indicate
they'll be away for longer than three weeks).
	


		-eric