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

[Ryan Schmidt]

On Oct 2, 2008, at 2:02 PM, Eric Hall wrote:

> 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).


The maintainer could just send an email to the dev list. I think then  
we'd remember the maintainer's name if it came up in an abandonment  
request ticket.