-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 283
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Maintenance of k*-ecosystem #1861
Comments
Archiving makes it harder to find new maintainers. If a way, the "abandoned" status, is an open invitation to a new maintainer while archived means we don't want those anymore.
We should probably advertise that. In the Linux world they usually email the community with a "packages for adoption" list. |
Repos can have labels, so maybe we can come up with a suitable one that the bots can query for in case they need to be ignored. For example:
(This could be part of a bigger conversation about feedstock "health status" and how to attach the corresponding metadata). |
We had this conversation in the past and never reached a consensus. I like those label but I'd drop inactive. In a way that is the only thing we do when we archive a feedstock. The other two labels could be useful but I'd keep only |
Oh, yes, I've found this issue. There might be others. Users have been submitting some feedstocks they've found with reduced activity there; maybe we can add the k-* ecosystem there as well? |
Regardless of how we advertise the takeover of these feedstocks, I suggest we close the qt5.15 PRs for them - progressing on qt is hard enough as it is without having 30 abandoned feedstocks in the mix. For reference, here is the graph from the bot of how these packages depend on each other (and thus the build order if someone wants to pick this up later): |
Can we just leave them open and ignore them? The problem with closing them is the migrator thinks they are done and can then migrate their dependencies, which won't be possible since these packages themselves are not migrated then |
Which is why I'm proposing to close the PRs for the entirety of that interconnected blob of dependencies in the graph above. Keeping them open makes it seem like we're still miles away with the qt 5.15 migration, when realistically only a few packages are missing. It would allow us to focus efforts to get this over the finish line, rather than waiting in artificial stasis until someone comes along to fix an ecosystem of packages with <10k downloads. qt6 is making big strides in conda-forge, and moving to that is predicated on finishing the 5.15 migration. I don't think we should block such crucial packages (or any migration, really) on feedstocks that aren't actively being maintained. |
Think we can take the fact that these feedstocks are unmaintained into consideration when determining whether or not to close out the migration. We've needed to make similar calls for migrations where even maintained feedstocks could not integrate them for other reasons (upstream changes needed, new release, etc.). So think we could do similar here. |
@h-vetinari Maybe we could add a feature to the bot to skip/ignore/always issue migrations for certain feedstocks? |
I put a 👍 because I think it would be OK to do it like that, but I think it's just delaying the inevitable. Switching off migrations is IMO an explicit admission that the feedstocks are dead and gone. I've never really understood the concerns about archiving unmaintained feedstocks generally1, but in this particular case it should be on the table IMO, as it's exceedingly unlikely that anyone ever would want to sign up for reviving a set of 30+ interconnected feedstocks that haven't been built in years, for a very niche (in conda-forge) stack. And in the unlikely event that such a k-messiah does come a long, we still would only have to unarchive them. Footnotes
|
Seeing them pop up everywhere (not-solvable in migrations, bot errors somewhere and errored version updates), I would be very much in favor of archiving all of them. For such a large ecosystem, if someone shows up that would like to maintain them again, I would expect that they have had probably contact with one of the other ways of conda-forge already to ask how they can be unarchived. |
There are more than 30 packages stuck in the qt 5.15 migrator, which seem to be leading up to https://github.com/conda-forge/kdenlive-feedstock.
Most of these feedstocks seem to have been added by @scopatz, and only have him as a maintainer. There are many, many open version bump and migrator PRs across those feedstocks, and the final package has ~6k downloads.
Should these feedstocks be archived? Or is there someone willing to maintain them?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: