From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 80D24138BF3 for ; Sun, 16 Feb 2014 14:18:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 77F60E0B08; Sun, 16 Feb 2014 14:18:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6D2C1E0AF2 for ; Sun, 16 Feb 2014 14:18:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.1.33] (85.red-80-28-180.adsl.static.ccgg.telefonica.net [80.28.180.85]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: pacho) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B476033F8A8 for ; Sun, 16 Feb 2014 14:18:45 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <1392560322.18051.129.camel@belkin5> Subject: Re: Assigning keyword/stable bugs to arch teams (WAS: [gentoo-dev] dropping redundant stable keywords) From: Pacho Ramos To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2014 15:18:42 +0100 In-Reply-To: References: <20140128182304.7d458a17@marga.jer-c2.orkz.net> <20140203062524.GA7467@rathaus.eclipse.co.uk> <20140203104341.2add2760@TOMWIJ-GENTOO> <20140204210319.GA1935@rathaus.eclipse.co.uk> <20140205010833.1bcf8dca@TOMWIJ-GENTOO> <20140213212818.GA2199@rathaus.eclipse.co.uk> <20140214195958.5aea85f0@TOMWIJ-GENTOO> <20140215012855.417f1caa@marga.jer-c2.orkz.net> <20140215114157.6abe3da5@TOMWIJ-GENTOO> <20140215225322.GB1593@laptop.home> <20140216003703.6ceb9116@marga.jer-c2.orkz.net> <1392540063.18051.95.camel@belkin5> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.10.4 Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Archives-Salt: 39ffe21a-28fd-47bf-88bc-830e42e5c292 X-Archives-Hash: 9e7e458c4cb52b9ef29e2d97cf75660b El dom, 16-02-2014 a las 09:03 -0500, Rich Freeman escribió: > On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 3:41 AM, Pacho Ramos wrote: > > 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. > > Well, that depends on your perspective. If they fix them by deleting > the old version, then whether they've made things better or worse is a > matter of philosophy. I think that, if they delete del old version without breaking the tree (and, then, moving the package to testing for that arch), the situation is improved. But, if the bug is assigned to the same team that cannot handle its stabilization, I doubt they will move it to testing either. > > That's basically the counter-argument to removing old versions. If > the newer version doesn't work at all, then the old buggy version is > superior. It is better to have the bugs ignored, than to pester the > maintainer until the package is disabled entirely. But, I guess there are two major cases: - Versions that cannot be stabilized due they not working on that arch any longer - Versions that are not stabilized because arch team doesn't have the man power to do that. I am referring to the second case that is also really common. This also raises again the question about being enough to do build tests for that arches or not. If that is the case, would be nice if maintainers could have access to that machines to let us help them :) (if I would build them on that arches, I would try to help for sure)