List Archive: gentoo-dev
Note: Due to technical difficulties, the Archives are currently not up to date.
provides an alternative service for most mailing lists.c.f. bug 424647
On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 11:42:15AM +0100, justin wrote:
> 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*
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).