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 688D2138BF3 for ; Sun, 16 Feb 2014 13:49:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 10524E0ABE; Sun, 16 Feb 2014 13:49:03 +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 23972E0AA1 for ; Sun, 16 Feb 2014 13:49:02 +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 F2C8A33DF72 for ; Sun, 16 Feb 2014 13:49:00 +0000 (UTC) Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2014 14:48:57 +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: <20140216144857.2c79cb34@marga.jer-c2.orkz.net> In-Reply-To: <20140216082327.6f7b97ce@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> <20140215143021.231bab3f@marga.jer-c2.orkz.net> <20140216082327.6f7b97ce@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: 8be6232d-d761-4bd4-bca0-a4bc0db60ad4 X-Archives-Hash: c6492a7c812674385f0c02be51a36546 On Sun, 16 Feb 2014 08:23:27 +0100 Tom Wijsman wrote: > > > 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? > > The responsibility is moved away from the maintainer; and thus also > its bugs, as well as the need to rely on a newer version to become > stable. The (slightly rhetorical) question was how an understaffed team could be realistically expected to start maintaining ebuilds. Your entire reply missed that point. The answer to the question is that you can't. A package maintainer cannot burden an understaffed team with more work. They are understaffed, so they will not do the work, and the maintainer has an itch to scratch (stop maintaining an older version of a package). Now guess who will be actually doing the work. jer