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 DD878138BF3 for ; Sat, 15 Feb 2014 23:37:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 0748CE0AC7; Sat, 15 Feb 2014 23:37:09 +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 1A8DCE0A93 for ; Sat, 15 Feb 2014 23:37:08 +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 1F3DF33F7FB for ; Sat, 15 Feb 2014 23:37:06 +0000 (UTC) Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2014 00:37:03 +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: <20140216003703.6ceb9116@marga.jer-c2.orkz.net> In-Reply-To: <20140215225322.GB1593@laptop.home> 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> 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: febc6a3c-f86e-4382-aa51-798a25762a48 X-Archives-Hash: 85408117d8615903a86402ff556b4913 On Sat, 15 Feb 2014 16:53:22 -0600 William Hubbs wrote: > The problem with this is, what if it is more than one arch team? Which > one do you assign it to? Oh the fun we had in the past when bugs got assigned to one arch team with a few others CC'd and no maintainer in sight (because maybe the maintainer was the reporter, or was blanky assumed to be known). Or when another arch alias got CC'd later on. Or when a maintainer got fed up waiting and reassigned to an arch team in a "rage quit". And so on. It makes very messy bug reports. Musical chairs, anyone? > 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"?