| 1 |
On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 9:31 AM, Jeroen Roovers <jer@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Sun, 16 Feb 2014 09:22:49 -0500 |
| 3 |
> Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
>> Well, they can assign the burden to an understaffed team if the team |
| 6 |
>> wants them to. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> Achieving nothing in the process, even if the understaffed team |
| 9 |
> actually responds. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
It achieves getting them off of the maintainer's radar. My goal isn't |
| 12 |
to fix the package, my goal is to eliminate it as a burden on the |
| 13 |
maintainer. Basically that one version of the package is now |
| 14 |
maintained by the arch team. Yes, I know they won't maintain it. The |
| 15 |
only people that impacts are those who use the arch, who are free to |
| 16 |
join the arch team and help out. My sense is that they'd prefer |
| 17 |
having it around to having it deleted. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> It's been done like this since forever. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
Nobody is disputing this at all. The reason why this thread seems to |
| 23 |
go on forever is that it seems like the users of the minor archs don't |
| 24 |
like the status quo. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
> |
| 27 |
>> That leaves the choice with the minor arch team, with deletion being |
| 28 |
>> the default. |
| 29 |
> |
| 30 |
> Yes, but "understaffed" so nobody is making any choices here. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
Well, if they make no choice then the maintainer deletes the package. |
| 33 |
That's what you want, right? The package would only stay around if |
| 34 |
the minor arch asked them to. If they don't do that, then nobody can |
| 35 |
complain. |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
However, I don't think it makes sense to enact changes like these |
| 38 |
unless the minor arch teams actually speak up about wanting the |
| 39 |
changes. If they don't I'd be inclined to just clarify that |
| 40 |
maintainers are welcome to trim old stable versions on minor archs if |
| 41 |
the bugs are older than n days. |
| 42 |
|
| 43 |
Rich |
Archives