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 0D0D1138BF3 for ; Sat, 15 Feb 2014 13:30:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 26FABE0B03; Sat, 15 Feb 2014 13:30:30 +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 335B7E0AFA for ; Sat, 15 Feb 2014 13:30:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: from marga.jer-c2.orkz.net (D4B2706A.static.ziggozakelijk.nl [212.178.112.106]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: jer) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 38A2E33FAAA for ; Sat, 15 Feb 2014 13:30:28 +0000 (UTC) Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2014 14:30:21 +0100 From: Jeroen Roovers To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: Assigning keyword/stable bugs to arch teams (WAS: [gentoo-dev] dropping redundant stable keywords) Message-ID: <20140215143021.231bab3f@marga.jer-c2.orkz.net> In-Reply-To: <20140215114157.6abe3da5@TOMWIJ-GENTOO> References: <52E7DBC1.5020102@gentoo.org> <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> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.9.3 (GTK+ 2.24.22; i686-pc-linux-gnu) 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=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 366a60b0-ef29-4ff3-9807-3640ca7fb45f X-Archives-Hash: 9a3d66129805164db19dd864874a5bbf On Sat, 15 Feb 2014 11:41:57 +0100 Tom Wijsman wrote: > > Assigning bugs so arch teams is cosmetic at best. s|so|to| > While it was not explained here, the idea can also move the actual > maintenance of the ebuild to the arch team; such that it becomes the > arch team's responsibility to deal with it, or rather don't deal with > it How would that ever work? You have some old cat/pkg/pkg-version.ebuild that you no longer want to maintain, but which happens to be the latest stable for $ARCH, which is apparently understaffed because they $ARCH hasn't tended to a related bug report in months, and now you want to leave the ebuild in place and also expect $ARCH to start maintaining it? How does $ARCH have the man power to do that, again? > and have it act as a nagging reminder that stabilization really is > due. This also reflects the importance of the package, as it will > receive more attention and thus be more verbose towards the arch team. No, you're wrong there. Nobody is reading those bugzilla e-mails - nobody is working on keywording/stabilisation for $ARCH. "Nagging" is pointless when nobody hears you, and an e-mail from bugzilla isn't magically better prioritised when Assignee: changes. The only reasonable course of action is to start dropping stable keywords for $ARCH, after a reasonable timeout. It gets tricky if this involves removing many keywords on dependencies, but if that's what you have to do to keep cat/pkg (and eclasses and profiles) in shape, then by all means _help_ _out_ $ARCH by doing it for them. If that means removing stable/unstable support for an entire DM or scripting framework, then so be it. As long as @system is keyworded properly (by which I really really really mean something better than a "compile only" test - you know who you are), $ARCH users will normally be able to figure out how to emerge unstable packages themselves. > > Recently I've seen a few keywording/stabilisation bug reports > > assigned to arch teams again. It's really annoying. If you've > > started doing this, then please stop before people start to think > > it's a good idea. It's not. > > Depends on what the arch teams think of this No, it doesn't. Package maintainers are responsible for their bug reports, and Assignee: should reflect that. Maintaining a stable tree for an arch team means that someone on that team needs to do more than scratch their own itches - slacking should be fixed by relieving their burden, not pile on more, because that's precisely how volunteer work ultimately doesn't get done. jer