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 63954138BF3 for ; Sun, 16 Feb 2014 01:05:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id C4347E0AB2; Sun, 16 Feb 2014 01:05:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-oa0-f44.google.com (mail-oa0-f44.google.com [209.85.219.44]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DA25DE09DA for ; Sun, 16 Feb 2014 01:05:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-oa0-f44.google.com with SMTP id g12so16234049oah.17 for ; Sat, 15 Feb 2014 17:05:37 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=sender:date:from:to:subject:message-id:mail-followup-to:references :mime-version:content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to :user-agent; bh=R3srgWj5JBt1A82LQFljplIzM6sLhYX97VsXKEfbtwo=; b=EIuOmqROVojTdNg/H1d7oBqICc2bTrrBi+5eXrgyuDrVohm+Eti/JrF0zeiN39v58d ER6916lxlKSXJHrE4vptGxaWeS0P+Z9wKOyq9eER7+xXwNjMF3eLyYRcTYhjw6ytr0Wk AR21WiqHw8rvAPmiZdG9V9kmuczZyD0Efk0pvxU7xcCf9ak/+MHL/BiLjuustfmpp5EP i3FIemf/h1N4UhRr0Pfsr1MVNlrG72o6/iHDamQKfYyDB4DM6o7lXNN4Tqs84bBzXY8H bbd1pQgKmLslcrq2cs5PugakaFm9Wtw8tpARcPsS3MvJw8vB0NVNpraWUqhaKgd1I/P/ k03A== X-Received: by 10.60.161.37 with SMTP id xp5mr13844642oeb.31.1392512736905; Sat, 15 Feb 2014 17:05:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from laptop (cpe-76-187-91-128.tx.res.rr.com. [76.187.91.128]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id h4sm71391603oev.2.2014.02.15.17.05.33 for (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sat, 15 Feb 2014 17:05:35 -0800 (PST) Sender: William Hubbs Received: by laptop (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Sat, 15 Feb 2014 19:05:56 -0600 Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2014 19:05:56 -0600 From: William Hubbs To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: Assigning keyword/stable bugs to arch teams (WAS: [gentoo-dev] dropping redundant stable keywords) Message-ID: <20140216010556.GA2055@laptop.home> Mail-Followup-To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org References: <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> 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: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="5mCyUwZo2JvN/JJP" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20140216003703.6ceb9116@marga.jer-c2.orkz.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-Archives-Salt: 89fb18e8-afc3-452d-a7bf-a2eec95482ce X-Archives-Hash: dae22329240ccc9be9faa28887195252 --5mCyUwZo2JvN/JJP Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 12:37:03AM +0100, Jeroen Roovers wrote: > On Sat, 15 Feb 2014 16:53:22 -0600 > William Hubbs wrote: >=20 > > The problem with this is, what if it is more than one arch team? Which > > one do you assign it to? >=20 > 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? >=20 > > 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? >=20 > Again, where is the man power for that? :-) Agreed, I was just trying to find a middle ground to satisfy the other side of this. > 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]. Agreed, all the way. this is a real problem for package maintainers when arch teams are so understaffed they can't keep up. Also, it does a disservice to our users for us to claim we have stable trees on these arches when the stable packages are multiple versions behind the maintainer's stable requests. William > jer >=20 >=20 > [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"? >=20 --5mCyUwZo2JvN/JJP Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAlMADvQACgkQblQW9DDEZTg/gwCdEFKNeNiMehht6HcZNk2AK0ag 1X8Anjo7mmIN/dBiYIh7BH2nsVhV8TNB =6kHn -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --5mCyUwZo2JvN/JJP--