Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:102246
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmx.de designates 212.227.15.19 as permitted sender)
To: Stanislav Malyshev <smalyshev@gmail.com>,
 Rowan Collins <rowan.collins@gmail.com>, internals@lists.php.net
References: <f790ef52-0a92-a8a3-bb3d-891713b390be@gmail.com>
 <eedcc507-53ce-257e-d2d5-1365c5228b42@gmx.de>
 <CAESVnVpA4ikfE_-U9d637ittCFsUomOFTituyRkcTAnzyMVKbg@mail.gmail.com>
 <a5df69e8-b5ce-f956-fbd5-a6a03bb3a9a0@gmx.de>
 <c434f7d3-8012-a2c7-94a5-8af018161ce1@gmail.com>
 <49a93c54-6049-df02-7607-18c34b2fd3ce@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <2ab5b704-33ed-f19f-a4f9-10c5539ee62f@gmx.de>
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2018 22:40:12 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/52.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <49a93c54-6049-df02-7607-18c34b2fd3ce@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: de-DE
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC] orphan extensions cleanup
From: cmbecker69@gmx.de ("Christoph M. Becker")

On 12.06.2018 at 23:33, Stanislav Malyshev wrote:

>>> I'm afraid this might be misused.  It's too easy to update the year
>>> number, without actually doing *any* real maintenance work (“I'll come
>>> back to that later” …).  Some automated process would be nice, but
>>> manually checking the bug tracker for maintenance work (particularly
>>> wrt. security issues), and/or the commit log seems to be okay for now.
>>
>> That sounds like you're looking for a technical solution to an
>> organisational / social problem: if someone lists themselves as a
>> maintainer, they are making a commitment to volunteer their effort. That
>> commitment could be defined somewhere if it's not already, but it's
>> never going to be an automatically measurable SLA.
> 
> I agree here. If somebody cares enough to update the number, and by that
> commit to maintainership, this is already more than halfway towards the
> solution. We can never force anyone to be an active maintainer, or to
> allocate specific amount of time to fixing bugs or develop features, but
> the problem now is that we don't even have anybody in any maintainership
> capacity. We've had some people listed that haven't been active for
> years, and just remain there by default. I think once we solve this
> problem and have explicit commitment from maintainers, the question of
> how to make this commitment turn into a real work will be much better
> problem to have. We will still have to deal with it, obviously, but I
> think we first have to even get there.

Okay, you've convinced me. :)

-- 
Christoph M. Becker