Re: [gentoo-dev] making the stable tree more up-to-date

[Brian Harring]

On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 11:42:15AM +0100, justin wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I really like that you open all those bugs. But it makes no sense to add
> arches after a "time out". At least not after a such a short one. The
> maintainer is responsible for the package, that means it is their
> responsibility to decide that a package should go stable.

Might want to include data on "short time out".  If said timeout also 
occured despite a dev being away, that also would be relevant.

Personally, having been on the receiving end of it I don't mind it- 
the timeout approach is good for getting procrastrinating 
and/or overloaded maintaners to speak up rather than the bug rotting.


> In addition
> they have to make the package fit to the standards that the arch teams
> request. And I can tell from my own experience it is always more than
> the average package has.

Eh?  Tree standards apply, if the ebuild isn't yet to that point, than 
it should be sorted prior to unstable /anyways/.  If an arch has 
special standards, and they want the pkg stabled, it's on the *arch* 
to do the legwork if the requirements are daft, else tell the arch to 
be less retarded.  My view at least.

I *suspect* the requirements you're complaining about here are more 
related to source quality/running on alternate arches rather than 
packaging itself- either way clarification is useful.


> So as long as you don't review the packages
> yourself, consider a different proceeding than this timeout.
>
> Please remove all added arches from the packages maintained by all sci*
> teams.

I have no issues w/ people bypassing me if I'm not doing my job in a 
timely fashion- with the caveat that anyone doing so has to keep what 
they kill (you break it, you fix it; if I'm overloaded someone 
making a mess and dumping it in my lap will result in a fair bit of 
hell directed their way).

~harring