Re: Assigning keyword/stable bugs to arch teams (WAS: [gentoo-dev] dropping redundant stable keywords)

[Steev Klimaszewski]

On Sun, 2014-02-16 at 09:03 -0500, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 3:41 AM, Pacho Ramos <pacho@g.o> wrote:
> > Also, keeping the bugs assigned to package maintainers will still allow
> > them to try to get that pending bugs fixed (or resolved in some way) as
> > they will take care more about that specific package status. If we get
> > that bugs assigned to arch teams, they will likely be ignored by both
> > parts, getting worse.
>
> Well, that depends on your perspective.  If they fix them by deleting
> the old version, then whether they've made things better or worse is a
> matter of philosophy.
>
> That's basically the counter-argument to removing old versions.  If
> the newer version doesn't work at all, then the old buggy version is
> superior.  It is better to have the bugs ignored, than to pester the
> maintainer until the package is disabled entirely.
>
> Honestly, this whole conversation seems rather theoretical.  What I
> haven't heard from is the minor arch leads.  Actually, looking at the
> base project page, it seems like half of them don't even have leads.
>

Minor arch co-lead checking in.  I haven't chimed in as I'm still pretty
agitated with the PREVIOUS thread about this exact same topic.  And by
agitated, I mean I'm tired of it.  If you guys wanna break the tree for
us minor arches, go for it.  It's obvious from the thread that people
care not about making Gentoo the best distro that it can be, and
entirely care about how pretty the graphs are, and how short their bug
lists are.  I'm tired of "fighting" about this.  My position was made
known, some agreed, some disagreed, but reiterating it over and over
does nothing, and no new information is brought in by it.  If you want
to re-read it, feel free to read through the previous thread.

> The other issue is that at least some devs have been stabilizing new
> packages on minor archs for which the council decided to drop stable
> keywords.  How to handle that is on the next agenda as well.
>
> Basically all of this boils down to whether it is a good compromise to
> redefine "stable" to something different on minor archs so that they
> can make some use of the keyword, and do it without driving
> maintainers nuts.  I don't have a big problem with that, as long as it
> is done in a way that doesn't place any burden on anybody who doesn't
> use the minor arch (including bug wranglers, maintainers, etc).
>
> Rich
>