Re: Assigning keyword/stable bugs to arch teams (WAS: [gentoo-dev] dropping redundant stable keywords)

[Pacho Ramos <pacho@gentoo.org>]

El dom, 16-02-2014 a las 00:37 +0100, Jeroen Roovers escribió:
[...]
> > If we want a separate assignee for old stabilizations, what about a
> > separate project that handles this, or maybe we could assign the bugs
> > to m-n or something until the arch teams catch up?
> 
> Again, where is the man power for that? :-)
> 
> It's the maintainers that this problem hurts most, so they could and
> should be fixing it themselves - after a few months of waiting,
> reminding arch teams and gritting your teeth over it, just remove the
> old stable ebuilds[1].
> 
> 
>      jer
> 
> 
> [1] Where possible. If this happens with non-dev, non-experimental
>     architectures and keeping the old ebuilds is a real problem, the
>     architecture's status should be reconsidered. As has been done on
>     this mailing list time and again. If an arch team cannot even be
>     bothered to keep @system up to date, then why bother pretending
>     it's anywhere near "stable"?
> 

I agree with Jeroen here. If the arch teams that are usually a bit
behind are not able to fix the bugs, I doubt we will gain anything
assigning bugs to them. Because of the way testing/stabilization bugs
work, arch teams should always check the bugs with them CCed and, then,
I don't think getting that bugs assigned to them would change much.

Also, keeping the bugs assigned to package maintainers will still allow
them to try to get that pending bugs fixed (or resolved in some way) as
they will take care more about that specific package status. If we get
that bugs assigned to arch teams, they will likely be ignored by both
parts, getting worse.