discuss: Dealing with poor maintenance by maintainers
Subject:
Re: Dealing with poor maintenance by maintainers
From:
Togan Muftuoglu ####@####.####
Date:
12 May 2002 17:38:20 -0000
Message-Id: <20020512173700.GA25513@dinamizm.com>
Hi,
* David Lawyer; ####@####.#### on 12 May, 2002 wrote:
>One is fixing any real bugs people report (with bugs including lack of
>clarity). If a bug is important, it needs to be fixed fast. Other bugs
>can wait a while, sometimes a few months if it's just a typo where
>people can easily figure out what you really meant to say. Maintainer
>refusing to help people with problems is OK, unless the problem is that
>the HOWTO doesn't cover something it should.
a) How do you make sure the maintainer will fix the bug(s).
b) What is the acceptable time frame to fix the bug(s)?
c) What will happen if the maintainer has not fixed the bug(s) in relation
to item "b"
>
>The second aspect is keeping up with developments in the topic and
>adding the latest info on the subject to the doc. It's hard to tell if
>this is being done. Only the maintainer knows. And not always, since
>if the maintainer doesn't know about new developments, s/he may not even
>realize that changes are need. Doing this right takes a lot of time
>since procedures for old versions and old hardware still need to be kept
>in the doc, but put in an appendix, etc. and removed from the mainstream
>of the doc.
replace the word bug(s) with development and the above question do apply
>So what do we do about this? For one, we can establish a different
>organization of docs that need work, rather than just "unmaintained". I
>tentatively suggest:
>
>1. Unmaintained
>2. New-Maintainer-Needed
>3. Co-Maintainer-Needed
>4. Obsolete
What happens when you create these categories ? Will distributions who
have dropped the package or at the process of elimination reconsider
their actions ? I doubt. RH and other key players are in business now and
they do not want to include document that are in conflict with their
system and documentation.
Howto's are voluntary so you cannot force someone to fix the bugs or
update the document to match up with new versions of software or
development etc.
I would say the licence should be changed so that if an HOWTO is
accepted "tldp" has the right to proofread and fix the bugs either
discovered during proofreading phase or whenever appropriate.
Regards
--
Togan Muftuoglu
Unofficial SuSE FAQ Maintainer
http://dinamizm.ath.cx
