| 1 |
On Sat, 15 Feb 2014 16:53:22 -0600 |
| 2 |
William Hubbs <williamh@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> The problem with this is, what if it is more than one arch team? Which |
| 5 |
> one do you assign it to? |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
Oh the fun we had in the past when bugs got assigned to one arch team |
| 8 |
with a few others CC'd and no maintainer in sight (because maybe the |
| 9 |
maintainer was the reporter, or was blanky assumed to be known). Or when |
| 10 |
another arch alias got CC'd later on. Or when a maintainer got fed up |
| 11 |
waiting and reassigned to an arch team in a "rage quit". And so on. It |
| 12 |
makes very messy bug reports. Musical chairs, anyone? |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
> If we want a separate assignee for old stabilizations, what about a |
| 15 |
> separate project that handles this, or maybe we could assign the bugs |
| 16 |
> to m-n or something until the arch teams catch up? |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
Again, where is the man power for that? :-) |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
It's the maintainers that this problem hurts most, so they could and |
| 21 |
should be fixing it themselves - after a few months of waiting, |
| 22 |
reminding arch teams and gritting your teeth over it, just remove the |
| 23 |
old stable ebuilds[1]. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
jer |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
[1] Where possible. If this happens with non-dev, non-experimental |
| 30 |
architectures and keeping the old ebuilds is a real problem, the |
| 31 |
architecture's status should be reconsidered. As has been done on |
| 32 |
this mailing list time and again. If an arch team cannot even be |
| 33 |
bothered to keep @system up to date, then why bother pretending |
| 34 |
it's anywhere near "stable"? |
Archives