1 |
On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 01:20:29PM +0100, "Paweł Hajdan, Jr." wrote: |
2 |
> On 1/25/11 12:38 PM, Tomáš Chvátal wrote: |
3 |
> > Every arch teams should stabilise OR write out reason why they can't do |
4 |
> > so to stable bug in 90 days. If any arch team fails to do so the |
5 |
> > maintainer can decide to drop their keywords to testing. Given depgraph |
6 |
> > breakages the maintainer can coordinate with the QA team to drop all |
7 |
> > reverse dependencies to testing too. |
8 |
> |
9 |
> Seconded. Reality++ |
10 |
> |
11 |
> Be prepared for some issues though. Sometimes maintainers don't agree |
12 |
> with reasons arch teams provide that block stabilizations. In those |
13 |
> cases, who makes the decision? My suggestion is QA. |
14 |
QA is not a solution to everything. The problem Tomas is trying to |
15 |
counter here is the idle/slacking arches. If the arch is active but have some |
16 |
concerns regarding the stabilization then let the maintainer deal with |
17 |
it. This is the way we do it now anyway |
18 |
> |
19 |
> Also, we should have someone to check for stale stabilization bugs. I'm |
20 |
> not sure if all reporters are able to take care of that, especially if |
21 |
> they have a lot of bugs open. |
22 |
> |
23 |
> Paweł |
24 |
> |
25 |
Thats really their problem. Arches can always remove themselves from the |
26 |
bugs. No need to care about stale bugs. If the maintainers don't care |
27 |
then we(arches) don't care. |
28 |
|
29 |
Regards, |
30 |
-- |
31 |
Markos Chandras (hwoarang) |
32 |
Gentoo Linux Developer |
33 |
Key ID: B4AFF2C2 |
34 |
Key FP: 660A 0742 84EC 26F1 9EDB F00A FA83 5A15 B4AF F2C2 |