On Sat, 2004-06-19 at 17:33 -0600, Jason Wever wrote:
> > Actually, because we paid attention to it, it has not lead to any
> > serious treaths to stable arches trees. So if we let go and you do for
> > once suffer the consequences, this might still change, but I hope it
> > won't have to come that.
> 
> If this is truly the case, then why are the arch teams not notified? 
> Isn't that exactly what we exist for?  And how can a package maintainer
> then apply and QA a fix a problem for an architecture for which they
> cannot test?  Also, who is "we"?

The arch teams are notified, but the same thing happens again and again
and that has to lead to this thread.
About your problem & fixing : that's the whole deal, it is general
issues that slip trough this way, so it's the package maintainers
responsibility.

> Personally, I cannot see how having a package maintainer that cannot test
> for a given architecture can provide any level of QA towards that
> architecture without outside help.  Additionally, outsides of cases where
> new versions or revisions cause problems with dependencies (or the usual
> ~arching of a new rev/version of a given package), package maintainers who
> cannot test for a given architecture shouldn't be adjusting those
> keywords.  Again these are just my feelings and not any form of policy
> that I'm aware of.

You skip things around. It is not the 'maintainers arch' that is QA-ing
for an arch it does not maintain, it's the 'arch maintainer' thats skips
part of QA done by the 'package maintainer'.

- foser