On 12/16/11 2:27 PM, "Paweł Hajdan, Jr." wrote:
> On 12/16/11 11:42 AM, 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
> I'm sorry this has annoyed/upset you. Let me just point out some facts:
> - in November I first wrote about this new "more stabilizations" thing,
> and included a list of ~800 packages, including many sci- ones
> I don't remember any complains from the sci- maintainers then.
> - people complain that a week-long timeout is too short, while after I
> CC arches the answer often comes within minutes.
> - actually in this case you've said "go ahead" for the bugs filed (thank
> you!), so I don't fully understand the concerns here
> - the bugs get filed when a package's most recent version has spent 6
> months in ~arch, has _no_ open bugs, and is not a beta/alpha/rc/whatever
> version. Many packages for which I filed bugs spent in ~arch a year or more.
>> The maintainer is responsible for the package, that means it is
>> their responsibility to decide that a package should go stable.
> Packages with stable versions a year behind suggest this is not always
> the case. Furthermore, most maintainers are happy about those
> stabilizations (or tools), and users also like it.
>> In addition they have to make the package fit to the standards that
>> the arch teams request.
> There are standards and nits. We frequently stabilize a package if only
> nits are present.
>> So as long as you don't review the packages yourself, consider a
>> different proceeding than this timeout.
> See the conditions above that packages have to meet to be included in
> the stabilization list. I consider that an adequate review, and I know
> arch developers and testers who look at the ebuilds.
> It's always possible to close the bug if the package is deemed not ready.
>> Please remove all added arches from the packages maintained by all
>> sci* teams.
> I can do that, but are you sure? I noted you've commented "go ahead"
> on many of those (thank you!) - how about those bugs?
I really, really appreciate this push you give towards more stable trees
and I don't think sci teams dislike this. The only thing I want is some
time to review the packages before I sent them to the arch teams. And as
I said before, it would have been better if I would have dropped a short
comment on the bugs telling that they are in progress.
The recent "go aheads" were simply that I found time to review the one
or other bug.
So lets agree that your proceeding is worth the effort, but extend the
time you give the maintainer to iron their packages.