1 |
On 12/16/11 11:42 AM, justin wrote: |
2 |
> I really like that you open all those bugs. But it makes no sense to |
3 |
> add arches after a "time out". At least not after a such a short |
4 |
> one. |
5 |
|
6 |
I'm sorry this has annoyed/upset you. Let me just point out some facts: |
7 |
|
8 |
- in November I first wrote about this new "more stabilizations" thing, |
9 |
and included a list of ~800 packages, including many sci- ones |
10 |
(<http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_a8d47428737e600238e3ad3d60f79208.xml>). |
11 |
I don't remember any complains from the sci- maintainers then. |
12 |
|
13 |
- people complain that a week-long timeout is too short, while after I |
14 |
CC arches the answer often comes within minutes. |
15 |
|
16 |
- actually in this case you've said "go ahead" for the bugs filed (thank |
17 |
you!), so I don't fully understand the concerns here |
18 |
|
19 |
- the bugs get filed when a package's most recent version has spent 6 |
20 |
months in ~arch, has _no_ open bugs, and is not a beta/alpha/rc/whatever |
21 |
version. Many packages for which I filed bugs spent in ~arch a year or more. |
22 |
|
23 |
> The maintainer is responsible for the package, that means it is |
24 |
> their responsibility to decide that a package should go stable. |
25 |
|
26 |
Packages with stable versions a year behind suggest this is not always |
27 |
the case. Furthermore, most maintainers are happy about those |
28 |
stabilizations (or tools), and users also like it. |
29 |
|
30 |
> In addition they have to make the package fit to the standards that |
31 |
> the arch teams request. |
32 |
|
33 |
There are standards and nits. We frequently stabilize a package if only |
34 |
nits are present. |
35 |
|
36 |
> So as long as you don't review the packages yourself, consider a |
37 |
> different proceeding than this timeout. |
38 |
|
39 |
See the conditions above that packages have to meet to be included in |
40 |
the stabilization list. I consider that an adequate review, and I know |
41 |
arch developers and testers who look at the ebuilds. |
42 |
|
43 |
It's always possible to close the bug if the package is deemed not ready. |
44 |
|
45 |
> Please remove all added arches from the packages maintained by all |
46 |
> sci* teams. |
47 |
|
48 |
I can do that, but are you sure? I noted you've commented "go ahead" |
49 |
on many of those (thank you!) - how about those bugs? |