| 1 |
On Thu, Jan 03, 2008 at 08:02:39AM -0500, Caleb Tennis wrote: |
| 2 |
> > If you have something you'd wish for us to chat about, maybe even |
| 3 |
> > vote on, let us know ! Simply reply to this e-mail for the whole |
| 4 |
> > Gentoo dev list to see. |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> I would like to request the council discuss, though not necessarily take action or |
| 7 |
> vote on, the idea of "slacker arches" and what ebuild maintainers are allowed/can do |
| 8 |
> to a package versions that are languishing due to not getting stable keywords on |
| 9 |
> those arches. |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> I'm not trying to pick on any specific case, but I am hoping to find out if there's |
| 12 |
> an allowable/acceptable period of time to which if an arch team is unable to |
| 13 |
> stabilize a package to a newer version, for non-technical reasons, that it's okay to |
| 14 |
> drop older unstable ebuilds. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
Why taking it against arch teams? How is that different from "certain |
| 17 |
maintainer not taking care of a bug that holds stabilization of certain |
| 18 |
package by some time measured in months" ? I'll tell you my answer: 'no |
| 19 |
difference at all'. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Note that I'm probably responsible for some real situations related to |
| 22 |
what I said both as an ebuild maintainer and as an arch developer. So |
| 23 |
nobody should take this as slacker-calling since we are all VOLUNTEERS |
| 24 |
and we do what we want. However, a fine example of that is: |
| 25 |
http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=181275 |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
- ferdy |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
-- |
| 30 |
Fernando J. Pereda GarcimartÃn |
| 31 |
20BB BDC3 761A 4781 E6ED ED0B 0A48 5B0C 60BD 28D4 |
Archives