From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org) by nuthatch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1HduHm-0004dZ-Qh for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Tue, 17 Apr 2007 20:28:23 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.0/8.14.0) with SMTP id l3HKRNFN000642; Tue, 17 Apr 2007 20:27:23 GMT Received: from smtp01.atlngahp.sys.nuvox.net (smtp-out1.atlngahp.sys.nuvox.net [70.43.63.18]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.0/8.14.0) with ESMTP id l3HKPSQl031051 for ; Tue, 17 Apr 2007 20:25:28 GMT Received: from [10.3.23.140] (216.215.202.4.nw.nuvox.net [216.215.202.4]) (authenticated bits=0) by smtp01.atlngahp.sys.nuvox.net (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id l3HKPNhB030521 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 17 Apr 2007 16:25:23 -0400 Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-core] [POLICY] Keywording/Stabilizing Bug Assignment Policy From: Chris Gianelloni To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org In-Reply-To: References: <4625187A.4060403@gentoo.org> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-+uF8KpT4e98eXRDWemux" Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2007 16:25:23 -0400 Message-Id: <1176841523.8805.10.camel@inertia.twi-31o2.org> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.10.0 X-Archives-Salt: 317c21c1-239a-451e-b1cc-01ac699a18d3 X-Archives-Hash: 35205760fe490b09479dc3b455581ab3 --=-+uF8KpT4e98eXRDWemux Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, 2007-04-17 at 21:50 +0200, Stefan Schweizer wrote: > It would be cool to implement a keywording@gentoo.org alias just to > assign those bugs to so that we maintainers do not need to see them. While you may not find them useful, there have been 3 recent occasions of user requesting things get keyworded that I maintained on architectures where the packages didn't work. I don't know what these users did, but on all three occasions, I managed to step in and stop breakage from hitting the tree *because* I was in the chain of assignment/CC. I see no problem with some fake alias for keywording, provided the maintainers were still contacted first to allow them to say whether a package is indeed ready for stabilization. Remember, not all stabilization/keywording bugs come from other developers/maintainers. > > Once the last remaining arch has completed the bug, it is up to them to > > close it. They know it's up to them to close it since the bug is > > assigned directly to them. >=20 > In my opinion the last architecture should also remove the old ebuild > they have just made obsolete by stabling/keywording the new version, > since they commit to the directory anyway. This only works on cases where the older ebuild isn't in another SLOT and nothing else requires it. Yes, it *should* be cool to do this, but I think cleaning up packages/ebuilds is something best left to the maintainer. You're always welcome to say something along the lines of "last architecture to stable, please remove $ebuild when you're done" on the bugs in question. --=20 Chris Gianelloni Release Engineering Strategic Lead Alpha/AMD64/x86 Architecture Teams Games Developer/Council Member/Foundation Trustee Gentoo Foundation --=-+uF8KpT4e98eXRDWemux Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.3 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQBGJS0zkT4lNIS36YERAmczAKCNKSZYN1/bOz32mnt3MJEIDJ8M8ACgtoxe rG9M37ouS8gB5GyZbxZR7b0= =o8PE -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-+uF8KpT4e98eXRDWemux-- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list