1 |
On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 8:30 AM, Jeroen Roovers <jer@g.o> wrote: |
2 |
> On Sat, 15 Feb 2014 11:41:57 +0100 |
3 |
> Tom Wijsman <TomWij@g.o> wrote: |
4 |
> |
5 |
>> While it was not explained here, the idea can also move the actual |
6 |
>> maintenance of the ebuild to the arch team; such that it becomes the |
7 |
>> arch team's responsibility to deal with it, or rather don't deal with |
8 |
>> it |
9 |
> |
10 |
> How would that ever work? You have some old cat/pkg/pkg-version.ebuild |
11 |
> that you no longer want to maintain, but which happens to be the latest |
12 |
> stable for $ARCH, which is apparently understaffed because they $ARCH |
13 |
> hasn't tended to a related bug report in months, and now you want to |
14 |
> leave the ebuild in place and also expect $ARCH to start maintaining |
15 |
> it? How does $ARCH have the man power to do that, again? |
16 |
|
17 |
Many objected to removal since old with minor issues is better than |
18 |
new that doesn't work at all on some archs, or so the argument goes. |
19 |
|
20 |
This thread has gone on for a while, but at least this is a new suggestion. |
21 |
|
22 |
If we were torn between these two options (removal or re-assignment), |
23 |
then we could potentially leave the decision up to the arch team. If |
24 |
they speak up they can get bugs assigned to them, and if they don't |
25 |
speak up they get their stable packages removed. |
26 |
|
27 |
And I'm all for other options, but beyond more manpower I'm just not |
28 |
seeing anything that is going to be pretty. |
29 |
|
30 |
> Nobody is reading those bugzilla e-mails - nobody is working on |
31 |
> keywording/stabilisation for $ARCH. "Nagging" is pointless when |
32 |
> nobody hears you, and an e-mail from bugzilla isn't |
33 |
> magically better prioritised when Assignee: changes. |
34 |
|
35 |
I think the point is that the maintainer doesn't see the nags. If |
36 |
nobody else sees them either it is "somebody else's problem" from |
37 |
their standpoint. That isn't going to make the bug submitter very |
38 |
happy, but if removal of the only version of a package that works on |
39 |
their arch entirely is the alternative I suspect they will live with |
40 |
it, or better still join the arch team. |
41 |
|
42 |
Removing the package version entirely is the tidy solution from a |
43 |
tracking/bugs/etc standpoint. The problem is that for the end user it |
44 |
might mean taking away something that at least somewhat works and |
45 |
leaving them with nothing. Fixing the new version probably isn't an |
46 |
option if somebody isn't willing to step up, so the question is just |
47 |
whether we keep around the old version. The new suggestion is to keep |
48 |
it around, but not to bug the maintainer with the resulting issues. |
49 |
|
50 |
If an old version gets to the point where it is simply unusable it |
51 |
should almost certainly be dropped. That at least avoids constantly |
52 |
pestering the bug wranglers/etc with dups, and gives the arch team a |
53 |
bug list where at least they have some hope of doing something. |
54 |
|
55 |
Rich |