Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Stabilisation procedure

[Raymond Jennings]

On Sun, Nov 27, 2016 at 4:07 AM, Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o> wrote:

> On Sun, Nov 27, 2016 at 5:56 AM, Raymond Jennings <shentino@×××××.com>
> wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 12:06 AM, Alice Ferrazzi <alicef@g.o>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> What about maintainers that are away without writing it in their
> >> maintainer bug ?
> >> After how many days of no replay can be fair to touch their package ?
> >
> > If a developer lapses long enough and doesn't use devaway properly to
> mark
> > any waylaid packages as touchable...then that's probably an example of an
> > even bigger fish to fry that undertakers would handle anyway.
>
> A maintainer can be actively doing other work and still not respond to
> a stable request bug.  The only thing the undertakers could do about
> it is get rid of them, which stops the work they were actively doing
> and doesn't make the situation with the bug they were ignoring any
> better.
>
> Are devs supposed to ignore stable request bugs?  No.  Has anybody
> come up with a way to make them not do it?  Unfortunately not.  Part
> of the issue is that some devs are just somewhat antisocial and prefer
> to do their own thing.  For the most part as long as they're not
> actually actively making trouble for others we tend to accept this,
> since the only visible change to getting rid of them is less stuff
> getting done (the stuff they passively ignored still ends up being
> passively ignored).
>

That's actually a very good point.

This is why we tend to favor procedures that don't block progress by
> default.  Just set a timeout.  If the maintainer doesn't respond
> within x days then stabilization can proceed.  Maybe make an exception
> for @system.  We do similar things when devs want to touch each
> other's packages; if you don't get a response the assumption is that
> you can just go ahead.
>

I think this is a good idea.


> --
> Rich
>
>