Time to dissolve eclipse@ team? Others want to maintain / team concept in general

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
3 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Time to dissolve eclipse@ team? Others want to maintain / team concept in general

John Marino-7
For several months while scanning our numerous PRs, I've noticed people
complaining Eclipse was woefully out of 9 month ago.  There have been
several PRs and they aren't even getting answered.

I see a new one on 15 April, requesting maintainership also with
offering patches to update to the latest version.

As I understand it, the eclipse@ team is down to a single person, and I
don't think the team concept should be used with less than 3 people.

What's I'd like to see happen:

1) Portmgr establish minimum requirements for a "team".  Nobody is going
to touch a PR owned by a team, even if it has timed out for months.  I
recommend that a team must consist of at least 3 people, and if this
requirement cannot be maintained then the team must be dissolved.

2) the eclipse team should be dissolved unless more people join it
immediately.  The ports owned by eclipse should be reassigned to either
the current member of eclipse or ports@

3) seriously consider given eclipse maintainership to Jimmy Kelly if the
current maintainers don't have enough time anymore.

Eclipse is an important set of ports and having such an old version
doesn't look for ports, so it could be a Public Relations issue as well.

All that said, maybe the eclipse@ team has plans, but they certainly
haven't been communicated.  None of the last 5 PRs going back July 2013
have been responded to.

Thanks,
John
_______________________________________________
[hidden email] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-eclipse
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[hidden email]"
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Time to dissolve eclipse@ team? Others want to maintain / team concept in general

Mark Linimon-2
On Sun, Apr 20, 2014 at 09:29:57AM +0200, John Marino wrote:
> 1) I recommend that a team must consist of at least 3 people, and if
> this requirement cannot be maintained then the team must be dissolved.

I'm not so sure about this part, but ...
> Nobody is going to touch a PR owned by a team, even if it has timed
> out for months.

... this absolutely has to change.  Evidence below.

To save folks browser time, I've summarized the over 2000 (!) ports
PRs in http://portsmon.freebsd.org/portsprsall.py?sortby=responsible ,
focusing on mailing-list based maintainers.

*note*: I am not blaming anyone on any team for the accumulation.
Like most ports work, PR busting is thankless.

apache               9
autotools            3
chromium             4
doceng              10
freebsd-arm          2
freebsd-eclipse      4
freebsd-emulation   10
freebsd-java        20
freebsd-multimedia  34
freebsd-python      36
freebsd-x11         56
freebsd-xfce        10
gecko               32
gnome              100
haskell              5
kde                 32
lua                  4
mono                 3
office              44
perl                17
pgsql                6
ruby                 1
vbox                18

And now my own conclusions.  Yours may vary.

 - Pretty much every team needs new blood.

 - The UI-based things tend to have a larger number of PRs than
   non-UI-based things.  This is probably to be expected -- there's
   simply more ways to get things wrong.

 - The eclipse PRs are indeed stale -- but they're not the stalest.

 - The doceng (often ghostscript) PRs are rarely answered.

 - The multimedia, mono, and office PRs are rarely answered.

 - The multimedia PRs are mostly about multimedia/vlc.

 - The office PRs are often about build failures.

 - The gnome, kde, and x11 PR counts are somewhat mitigated by the
   fact that a great deal of integration and testing happens outside
   the ports tree, and tend to be introduced all at once.

 - Assigning new-port PRs to mailing lists is counterproductive.

mcl
_______________________________________________
[hidden email] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-eclipse
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[hidden email]"
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Time to dissolve eclipse@ team? Others want to maintain / team concept in general

Ronald Klop
In reply to this post by John Marino-7
On Sun, 20 Apr 2014 09:29:57 +0200, John Marino  
<[hidden email]> wrote:

> For several months while scanning our numerous PRs, I've noticed people
> complaining Eclipse was woefully out of 9 month ago.  There have been
> several PRs and they aren't even getting answered.
>
> I see a new one on 15 April, requesting maintainership also with
> offering patches to update to the latest version.
>
> As I understand it, the eclipse@ team is down to a single person, and I
> don't think the team concept should be used with less than 3 people.
>
> What's I'd like to see happen:
>
> 1) Portmgr establish minimum requirements for a "team".  Nobody is going
> to touch a PR owned by a team, even if it has timed out for months.  I
> recommend that a team must consist of at least 3 people, and if this
> requirement cannot be maintained then the team must be dissolved.
>
> 2) the eclipse team should be dissolved unless more people join it
> immediately.  The ports owned by eclipse should be reassigned to either
> the current member of eclipse or ports@
>
> 3) seriously consider given eclipse maintainership to Jimmy Kelly if the
> current maintainers don't have enough time anymore.
>
> Eclipse is an important set of ports and having such an old version
> doesn't look for ports, so it could be a Public Relations issue as well.
>
> All that said, maybe the eclipse@ team has plans, but they certainly
> haven't been communicated.  None of the last 5 PRs going back July 2013
> have been responded to.
>
> Thanks,
> John


At least reward people who make a PR with a patch for a new version of  
Eclipse with a port. People who actually do the work are the ones who make  
open source work.

Just make an eclipse43 port. I understand there is a  
eclipse-plugin-framework which must work with the eclipse port, but more  
exposure to new ports besides a patch on the mailinglist would be great.

Regards,
Ronald.
_______________________________________________
[hidden email] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-eclipse
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[hidden email]"