a.j.buxton at gmail.com
Wed Dec 3 19:43:02 CET 2014
Yes, this would be really useful. I find I'm sending patches to all
parts of Xfce, but I often have no idea who is responsible for
committing them. Maybe we need to look at the default bugzilla
assignees as well? Because quite often bugs get auto-assigned to
someone who has bug mail turned off and then nobody ever sees it.
I've previously suggested that bugs with patches should be listed
somewhere, so we have a kind of review queue that lists the person who
wrote the patch (the "driver") and the person who has commit rights
(the "owner"), so that those people are aware of each other.
https://wiki.xfce.org/releng/4.12/roadmap/critical-bugs is a start,
but it only lists bugs with patches, not owners and drivers.
On 3 December 2014 at 16:13, Eric <eric.koegel at gmail.com> wrote:
>>I'd like input from the Xfce developers (and other distribution
>>maintainers perhaps) on what other components can be closed out
>>as WONTFIX (or other if preferred).
> Question for everyone, would it be useful on the
> https://wiki.xfce.org/people page to list who maintains/has push
> rights to which components? This way people know who to poke for
> patches and which individual components/plugins/applications need a
> maintainer. This is related to the *adopting an orphaned app* (TODO
> link) already on the page.
> On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 11:49 AM, Liviu Andronic <landronimirc at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 5:04 AM, Robby Workman <rw at rlworkman.net> wrote:
>>> I'm trying to do some cleanup and triaging of bug reports on
>>> xfce's bugzilla, and recently I've been looking at old (<2010)
>>> reports with the intent of finding out whether they're still
>>> valid (and if not, closing them). In the process, I noticed that
>>> there are LOTS of bugs for components that are not considered
>>> part of Xfce any more (e.g. xfprint4) or are no longer maintained
>>> or considered usable (e.g. xfmedia).
>> Yeah, still sad to see Xfmedia go. One of the few media players that
>> actually made sense to me...
>>> I've closed out all of those
>>> two component's bugs with WONTFIX and a message indicating why.h
>>> I'd like input from the Xfce developers (and other distribution
>>> maintainers perhaps) on what other components can be closed out
>>> as WONTFIX (or other if preferred).
>>> Some that come to mind are:
>>> libxfcegui4 (won't be part of 4.12)
>>> pyxfce (appears to be unmaintained now)
>>> xfc (appears to be unmaintained now)
>>> xfce-installer (no intent to start doing this again, right?)
>>> xfce4-cellmodem-plugin (appears to be unmaintained)
>>> * probably the same for several other goodies, but that
>>> alone doesn't necessarily mean they should be closed out,
>>> I think - some still are in widespread usage
>>> xfce4-icon-theme (will this be staying dead or are there
>>> plans to revive it?)
>>> xfce4-xfapplet-plugin (appears unmaintained, and possibly
>>> irrelevant anyway since GNOME3, but perhaps MATE folks
>>> still want it)
>>> To be clear, I'm not suggesting that bugs be closed as WONTFIX
>>> *only* because something is unmaintained, but if some component
>>> is not maintained, not considered useful these days, and has
>>> basically no chance of anyone ever deciding to revive it, it
>>> would be nice to get those bugs closed and removed from the
>>> list of open reports.
>>> On a related note, this would perhaps be a good time for someone
>>> with appropriate access to move any such trees to the "archive"
>>> directory in git.
>>> Xfce4-dev mailing list
>>> Xfce4-dev at xfce.org
>> Do you think you know what math is?
>> Or what it means to be intelligent?
>> Think again:
>> Xfce4-dev mailing list
>> Xfce4-dev at xfce.org
> Xfce4-dev mailing list
> Xfce4-dev at xfce.org
a.j.buxton at gmail.com
More information about the Xfce4-dev