[arch-dev-public] Which Way Forward For Package Maintainance [was: next major steps have to be planned]

[Jason Chu]

> I agree with Paul here, but I even go futher and *formalize* the problem
> scope.
> 
> The problem like I see it is that you *need* to be an
> *archlinux-developer* to be allowed to maintain packages in core and extra.
> 
> I guess this is just to guarantee quality of packages but i think there
> are other ways of guaranteeing package quality and at the same time
> allowing the current strict definition of arch developers to be the only
> ones responsible for package maintainance.
> 
> I want to propose the following approach.
> 
> 1. The package management team should be properly defined out of the
> rest of the *blessed* archlinux development team.
> 
> 2. Every member of this team will be a package Maintainer (even if you
> maintain just one package, you are a maintainer). But not every member
> of this team will be able to *commit* to the official repositories.
> 
> 3. There will be some members of the team called _sponsors_ who will be
> the only ppl able to commit to the actual repositories and will also act
> as the QA guards to ensure proper quality of packages.
> 
> 4. The other maintainers will have to go thru the sponsors to get their
> packages accepted or updated, and a sponsor can decide to desponsor a
> package for various reasons (like inactive maintainance by a maintainer
> or a maintainers non-response to bug reports).
> 
> The thing is we already have this kind of setup:- namely the
> community/aur system.
> 
> I think we _need_ to admit to ourselves that the communit/aur repo works
> properly, but we need to somehow co-opt that system now that our
> workload is growing.

Agreed.

> I propose that:
> 
> 1. first... all *orphaned packages* from extra, core, community, aur,
> etc, should be moved into an [unmaintained] repository and just be done
> with it.

This one should probably wait till we have a concerted effort to adopt
orphaned packages.  The reason there are so many right now is because
everything that went to core and everything that moved from current to
extra lost its maintainer.  Once we clean those up it's probably a good
idea.

> 2. Then we should extend official status to community. (adding it to
> pacman repo files)

Isn't it already in by default?

> 3. Then we should slowly start setting up the sponsor/maintainer
> infrastructure, with all TUs automatically becoming sponsors in the new
> dispensation along with current developers who want to continue with
> package maintainance tasks as opposed to other development tasks (ISO
> building, etc).

How do you propose we do this?

> 4. The new sponsors should go around and for packages that list them as
> Maintainers but have seperate Contributors, invite those contributors to
> become Maintainers.
> 
> 5. Draw up guidelines for the operation of the sponsor/maintainer
> relationship. I'll be willing to help in any documentation that will be
> needed if this is to be done.
> 
> 6. Encourage ppl that are maintaining packages on AUR to apply for
> package sponsorship for their packages and let the rest happen from there.

I think contributions will be driven by the ease of communication... I
don't know what sorts of problems we'll run into there...

> > I know I personally would sign up as a maintainer for more packages
> > if I weren't the "only one" taking them on but rather part of a team
> > maintaining those packages.
> 
> I think the system i describe above is more efficient than staying tied
> to just a small team doing all the work.

I like the thought of doing it slowly.  It's always easier to adjust for
the unforseen when you can do things one step at a time.

Jason
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-dev-public/attachments/20070923/6901b07a/attachment.pgp>