From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1NvlM4-0004hC-Kk for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sun, 28 Mar 2010 05:48:13 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 6EDDFE0817; Sun, 28 Mar 2010 05:48:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: from fg-out-1718.google.com (fg-out-1718.google.com [72.14.220.157]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 890D7E05D7 for ; Sun, 28 Mar 2010 05:47:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: by fg-out-1718.google.com with SMTP id d23so2412146fga.10 for ; Sat, 27 Mar 2010 22:47:19 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:from:to:subject:date :user-agent:references:in-reply-to:disposition-notification-to :mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:message-id; bh=2Ii8O6SYkqj6clRkFPfhXRoiqBJGfIZauntcTUSlH0Q=; b=mLUifQtfenaV1NaexiXHQgOFFikwmRQqq+xMxsLRs5i83Scd9xmPEZtr8eMvdvB2aj ugRfBW/zMt58qNl5Zd8Gbg0NzCyJxzGaisnHP2Lag7qpDmN04/c5lC76l/HG5O9XtZbt /M+U1FfTEtebjXsWxxFsG4kBfPbE2p6jD/jcM= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=from:to:subject:date:user-agent:references:in-reply-to :disposition-notification-to:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:message-id; b=V+pG2l+jnCSh1ogi1QGA3V4dRhTFqnPxrueaSJosm+MLchJuhSQ3X1M99Q6N3zECQ9 o1r9oNWhyOp4GgK/+9gW9SWzy7vvLIgpQbDGcYHa3KF9IEwiRyXQ2filtB8BPTMjrCjV 8avlhsnj4umqWdGm69sVH2yd/DZ9jFwtLRPxg= Received: by 10.87.42.2 with SMTP id u2mr2883809fgj.79.1269755239741; Sat, 27 Mar 2010 22:47:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lebrodyl.localnet (aehb181.neoplus.adsl.tpnet.pl [79.186.183.181]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 14sm1957497fxm.9.2010.03.27.22.47.18 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Sat, 27 Mar 2010 22:47:19 -0700 (PDT) From: Maciej Mrozowski To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Reworking package stabilization policies Date: Sun, 28 Mar 2010 07:47:27 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.2 (Linux/2.6.31-gentoo-r10; KDE/4.4.2; x86_64; ; ) References: <20100327205841.GA12996@linux1> In-Reply-To: <20100327205841.GA12996@linux1> 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-Type: Text/Plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201003280747.28790.reavertm@gmail.com> X-Archives-Salt: 2b013b75-d1c2-4eae-9d37-e3fc3bd0fdcb X-Archives-Hash: 25f19134875d3833da3d0f1e32b621dc On Saturday 27 of March 2010 21:58:41 William Hubbs wrote: > On Sat, Mar 27, 2010 at 05:45:51PM +0100, Torsten Veller wrote: > > * Petteri R?ty : > > > So let's summarize for assigning to the single arch: > > > > > > In support (and my comments in support): > > > - Can be used as a gentle reminder for slacker arches > > > > And if not "only one arch" or "single arch" is slacking? > > I guess you would find another gentle way to remind them. > > > > > > How about a tool generating mails to arch teams, which lists all > > STABLEREQ, KEQWORDREQ bugs to which the arch team is CC'ed for a month? > > (Or probably easier or possible at all: which weren't changed for 30 > > days.) > > I know that I have several bugs right now with minor arch's on them > waiting to be stabilized. A couple have been waiting for a very long > time. I have even pinged some of the bugs several times with no response. > > Is there anything else I can do to get these arch teams attention? Yes, I think getting from them the privilege of being the only ones able to stabilize applications should do the job. No, seriously - given the fact that some of my packages were even stabilized without contacting me (app-misc/hal-cups-utils, app-admin/system-config- printer-common) - I think it should be: * solely up to the package maintainers to stabilize application on arches they're using or on any arch if package is arch-agnostic (optionally, but preferably with some peer review from other project members or arch team members). * to arch team members in other cases (like now) * other rules (30 days 'waiting' period, bugzilla bug with STABLEREQ) applied as they are now Role of arch teams would be decreased to peer review and solving KEYWORD requests. It's really freaking silly to wait months for stabilization of some random php/perl library that's known to work. Comments? -- regards MM