| 1 |
Chris Gianelloni wrote: |
| 2 |
[snip] |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> There's a couple more that I wouldn't mind seeing as things developers |
| 6 |
> can do without the maintainer, but I can see how these might be a bit |
| 7 |
> more controversial, so I'm asking for input. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> - Version bumps where the only requirement is to "cp" the ebuild |
| 10 |
This is more on a per package basis. it's not fair to force the maintainer to |
| 11 |
support a new version before he feels it's ready. For example, I'd love to |
| 12 |
bump games-simulation/simutrans but Mr_Bones_ claims it's unstable and doesn't |
| 13 |
want it bumped. It wouldn't be fair to him for me to bump it unless I took the |
| 14 |
burden of support. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
> - (for arch teams) Stabilization of new revisions of an already stable |
| 17 |
> package - An example of this would be being able to stabilize foo-1.0-r2 |
| 18 |
> if foo-1.0 (or foo-1.0-r1) is already stable, but not if only foo-0.9 is |
| 19 |
> stable. |
| 20 |
arch teams are the definitive authority on keywording for their arch. That |
| 21 |
said, if there is a disagreement between maintainer and arch team, the support |
| 22 |
burden falls on whoever did the keyword. Teamwork should solve this problem |
| 23 |
every time. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
I think the territoriality issue is one of support burden more than anything else. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
--taco |
| 28 |
-- |
| 29 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives