| 1 |
On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 11:41:57AM +0100, Tom Wijsman wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Sat, 15 Feb 2014 01:28:55 +0100 |
| 3 |
> Jeroen Roovers <jer@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> > On Fri, 14 Feb 2014 19:59:58 +0100 |
| 6 |
> > Tom Wijsman <TomWij@g.o> wrote: |
| 7 |
> > |
| 8 |
> > > > And that can work without a problem if we have a mechanism |
| 9 |
> > > > in place to relieve maintainers of those bugs. |
| 10 |
> > > |
| 11 |
> > > Such mechanism could be to assign those bug to the arch team, this |
| 12 |
> > > idea came up at FOSDEM; it won't solve the lack of manpower, but it |
| 13 |
> > > will at least relieve the maintainers and make the problem more |
| 14 |
> > > visible. |
| 15 |
> > |
| 16 |
> > Assigning bugs so arch teams is cosmetic at best. |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> While it was not explained here, the idea can also move the actual |
| 19 |
> maintenance of the ebuild to the arch team; such that it becomes the |
| 20 |
> arch team's responsibility to deal with it, or rather don't deal with |
| 21 |
> it and have it act as a nagging reminder that stabilization really is |
| 22 |
> due. This also reflects the importance of the package, as it will |
| 23 |
> receive more attention and thus be more verbose towards the arch team. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
The problem with this is, what if it is more than one arch team? Which |
| 26 |
one do you assign it to? |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
If we want a separate assignee for old stabilizations, what about a |
| 29 |
separate project that handles this, or maybe we could assign the bugs to |
| 30 |
m-n or something until the arch teams catch up? |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
William |
Archives