| 1 |
On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 12:37:03AM +0100, Jeroen Roovers wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Sat, 15 Feb 2014 16:53:22 -0600 |
| 3 |
> William Hubbs <williamh@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> > The problem with this is, what if it is more than one arch team? Which |
| 6 |
> > one do you assign it to? |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> Oh the fun we had in the past when bugs got assigned to one arch team |
| 9 |
> with a few others CC'd and no maintainer in sight (because maybe the |
| 10 |
> maintainer was the reporter, or was blanky assumed to be known). Or when |
| 11 |
> another arch alias got CC'd later on. Or when a maintainer got fed up |
| 12 |
> waiting and reassigned to an arch team in a "rage quit". And so on. It |
| 13 |
> makes very messy bug reports. Musical chairs, anyone? |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> > If we want a separate assignee for old stabilizations, what about a |
| 16 |
> > separate project that handles this, or maybe we could assign the bugs |
| 17 |
> > to m-n or something until the arch teams catch up? |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> Again, where is the man power for that? :-) |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Agreed, I was just trying to find a middle ground to satisfy the other |
| 22 |
side of this. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
> It's the maintainers that this problem hurts most, so they could and |
| 25 |
> should be fixing it themselves - after a few months of waiting, |
| 26 |
> reminding arch teams and gritting your teeth over it, just remove the |
| 27 |
> old stable ebuilds[1]. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
Agreed, all the way. this is a real problem for package maintainers when |
| 30 |
arch teams are so understaffed they can't keep up. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
Also, it does a disservice to our users for us to claim we have stable |
| 33 |
trees on these arches when the stable packages are multiple versions |
| 34 |
behind the maintainer's stable requests. |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
William |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
> jer |
| 39 |
> |
| 40 |
> |
| 41 |
> [1] Where possible. If this happens with non-dev, non-experimental |
| 42 |
> architectures and keeping the old ebuilds is a real problem, the |
| 43 |
> architecture's status should be reconsidered. As has been done on |
| 44 |
> this mailing list time and again. If an arch team cannot even be |
| 45 |
> bothered to keep @system up to date, then why bother pretending |
| 46 |
> it's anywhere near "stable"? |
| 47 |
> |
Archives