1 |
On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 3:41 AM, Pacho Ramos <pacho@g.o> wrote: |
2 |
> Also, keeping the bugs assigned to package maintainers will still allow |
3 |
> them to try to get that pending bugs fixed (or resolved in some way) as |
4 |
> they will take care more about that specific package status. If we get |
5 |
> that bugs assigned to arch teams, they will likely be ignored by both |
6 |
> parts, getting worse. |
7 |
|
8 |
Well, that depends on your perspective. If they fix them by deleting |
9 |
the old version, then whether they've made things better or worse is a |
10 |
matter of philosophy. |
11 |
|
12 |
That's basically the counter-argument to removing old versions. If |
13 |
the newer version doesn't work at all, then the old buggy version is |
14 |
superior. It is better to have the bugs ignored, than to pester the |
15 |
maintainer until the package is disabled entirely. |
16 |
|
17 |
Honestly, this whole conversation seems rather theoretical. What I |
18 |
haven't heard from is the minor arch leads. Actually, looking at the |
19 |
base project page, it seems like half of them don't even have leads. |
20 |
|
21 |
The other issue is that at least some devs have been stabilizing new |
22 |
packages on minor archs for which the council decided to drop stable |
23 |
keywords. How to handle that is on the next agenda as well. |
24 |
|
25 |
Basically all of this boils down to whether it is a good compromise to |
26 |
redefine "stable" to something different on minor archs so that they |
27 |
can make some use of the keyword, and do it without driving |
28 |
maintainers nuts. I don't have a big problem with that, as long as it |
29 |
is done in a way that doesn't place any burden on anybody who doesn't |
30 |
use the minor arch (including bug wranglers, maintainers, etc). |
31 |
|
32 |
Rich |