| 1 |
On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 12:02:02 -0500, Mike Doty wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 4 |
> Hash: SHA1 |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> R Hill wrote: |
| 7 |
> [snip] |
| 8 |
> | How about the ATs cc the maintainer on the bug they file to get the pkg |
| 9 |
> | bumped to stable, and giving them a period of time (48 hours? a week?) |
| 10 |
> | in which to raise any objections. Of course the AT's would still have |
| 11 |
> | the power to go over the maintainers head in case of an emergency - but |
| 12 |
> | only if the maintainer can't be reached, or can't do it themselves for |
| 13 |
> | whatever reason, or is just being a big dink. |
| 14 |
> You are missing the whole point of an AT. ATs have no inherit power, they |
| 15 |
> arn't even officialy gentoo people(yet). All an AT can do is comment on |
| 16 |
> the particular piece of software in question. |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> An arch team(not AT) could disregard the package maintainers thoughts and |
| 19 |
> move said package to stable before the maintainer does on his arch. ~ |
| 20 |
> However, this should be the exception, and not the rule. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
Okay, that's what i originally thought. But after seeing all the |
| 23 |
controversy this is causing, i figured i must have been mistaken and AT's |
| 24 |
must be tiny gods or something. Now i'm just confused and a little hungry. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Either way, i'm just saying whoever is doing the bumping could drop a |
| 27 |
quick note to the pkg maintainer before the fact. It's only polite. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
--de. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
-- |
| 33 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives