| 1 |
On Sun, 16 Feb 2014 08:23:27 +0100 |
| 2 |
Tom Wijsman <TomWij@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> > > While it was not explained here, the idea can also move the actual |
| 5 |
> > > maintenance of the ebuild to the arch team; such that it becomes |
| 6 |
> > > the arch team's responsibility to deal with it, or rather don't |
| 7 |
> > > deal with it |
| 8 |
> > |
| 9 |
> > How would that ever work? |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> The responsibility is moved away from the maintainer; and thus also |
| 12 |
> its bugs, as well as the need to rely on a newer version to become |
| 13 |
> stable. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
The (slightly rhetorical) question was how an understaffed team could |
| 16 |
be realistically expected to start maintaining ebuilds. Your entire |
| 17 |
reply missed that point. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
The answer to the question is that you can't. A package maintainer |
| 20 |
cannot burden an understaffed team with more work. They are |
| 21 |
understaffed, so they will not do the work, and the maintainer has an |
| 22 |
itch to scratch (stop maintaining an older version of a package). |
| 23 |
Now guess who will be actually doing the work. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
jer |
Archives