| 1 |
On 6/13/2019 12:27 PM, Haelwenn (lanodan) Monnier wrote: |
| 2 |
> This makes little sense to do when GURU exists… and the keyword should |
| 3 |
> IMHO be into metadata.xml. |
| 4 |
> And so, you get the same as proxy-maint@, right? |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> If this is about the lack of workforce for merging proxy-maint PRs |
| 7 |
> then maybe it should by moving stuff to GURU as it's not on the same |
| 8 |
> QA level and model? Specially as I don't think we should lower the QA |
| 9 |
> level of the gentoo tree. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
My understanding is that GURU only exists for packages that don't exist |
| 12 |
in the primary tree. So it addresses the new-package backlog, but not |
| 13 |
the version bump backlog for packages that exist in the primary tree. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
A separate tree for version bumps probably creates it's own issues |
| 16 |
though, since revisions would probably start conflicting. (Gentoo: -r3; |
| 17 |
User Improves: -r4; Gentoo doesn't accept -r4, but needs to issue an |
| 18 |
unrelated -r4 => conflict.) |
Archives