| 1 |
On 1/25/11 1:30 PM, Markos Chandras wrote: |
| 2 |
> QA is not a solution to everything. The problem Tomas is trying to |
| 3 |
> counter here is the idle/slacking arches. If the arch is active but have some |
| 4 |
> concerns regarding the stabilization then let the maintainer deal with |
| 5 |
> it. This is the way we do it now anyway |
| 6 |
>> |
| 7 |
>> Also, we should have someone to check for stale stabilization bugs. I'm |
| 8 |
>> not sure if all reporters are able to take care of that, especially if |
| 9 |
>> they have a lot of bugs open. |
| 10 |
>> |
| 11 |
> Thats really their problem. Arches can always remove themselves from the |
| 12 |
> bugs. No need to care about stale bugs. If the maintainers don't care |
| 13 |
> then we(arches) don't care. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
I was mostly thinking about cases like https://bugs.gentoo.org/329633 |
| 16 |
where indeed arches remove themselves from the bug, but there is a |
| 17 |
dispute between them and the maintainer about the correct course of action. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
The usual "conflict resolution" procedure would be to contact the team |
| 20 |
lead, and eventually the council. However, I'm not sure whether that |
| 21 |
would be optimal for stabilization bugs. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Paweł |
Archives