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 CAE4A138BF3 for ; Sun, 16 Feb 2014 20:50:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id B37F1E0C09; Sun, 16 Feb 2014 20:50:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-oa0-f52.google.com (mail-oa0-f52.google.com [209.85.219.52]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C7540E0BEF for ; Sun, 16 Feb 2014 20:50:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-oa0-f52.google.com with SMTP id i4so16928587oah.11 for ; Sun, 16 Feb 2014 12:50:21 -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=2P9dDpfUFgLX3O9AVohmTSeYCPlDNCiiYZampiOfIKo=; b=R1hcnfkx3sRaYuyfUOliLOU7tkSUMPrBnD4vUGTXiYj0h8mGUSuskzlTK6Jvbk0LaO zxAtDUee+MdNlMc39p7re9EACbON3f1BID7TmVSUOBFzpCw5WPuI/Rouwp4cxj2BexHG +PupmnUMWalx0qrgQ2Kd+FTHcQvFo3j890fAnvALKjgB3WHz/iRaXWUrMSYdh8LXfHSz awmAZPXuzSOImUeibTc1b48K84pEu2vVDOyhnUS0TBNzy11eEPybJ0Ix0I8r7vxaaDyB 8kvseJLZ4nWWZGdheuMpbGBxUwC/UCzxUPfW2kk8vGi06Qbhn8t+Rk+/N6/7LKvJUQiC RWFg== X-Received: by 10.182.22.18 with SMTP id z18mr3043044obe.42.1392583821869; Sun, 16 Feb 2014 12:50:21 -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 ii8sm40069330obb.11.2014.02.16.12.50.18 for (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sun, 16 Feb 2014 12:50:20 -0800 (PST) Sender: William Hubbs Received: by laptop (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Sun, 16 Feb 2014 14:50:41 -0600 Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2014 14:50:41 -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: <20140216205041.GA22946@laptop.home> Mail-Followup-To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org References: <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> <1392540063.18051.95.camel@belkin5> <20140216185847.29cd1e71@TOMWIJ-GENTOO> 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="EeQfGwPcQSOJBaQU" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20140216185847.29cd1e71@TOMWIJ-GENTOO> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-Archives-Salt: c875eaa8-67e9-46a3-9fe3-e1d9065cd4d1 X-Archives-Hash: 472955dcbaba9b1e7b32ba4f0676adad --EeQfGwPcQSOJBaQU Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 06:58:47PM +0100, Tom Wijsman wrote: > On Sun, 16 Feb 2014 09:41:03 +0100 > Pacho Ramos wrote: >=20 > > El dom, 16-02-2014 a las 00:37 +0100, Jeroen Roovers escribi=F3: > > [...] > > > > 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? :-) > > >=20 > > > 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]. > > >=20 > > >=20 > > > 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 > >=20 > > I agree with Jeroen here. If the arch teams that are usually a bit > > behind are not able to fix the bugs, I doubt we will gain anything > > assigning bugs to them. Because of the way testing/stabilization bugs > > work, arch teams should always check the bugs with them CCed and, > > then, I don't think getting that bugs assigned to them would change > > much. >=20 > That would be true if the context of this thread were the arch team; > however, the context of this thread is the maintainer as that is the > person experiencing the problem that was put forward. >=20 > The solution here thus intends to address the maintainer, which benefits > from this; while it keeps the arch team's the same, whether the arch > team does more with this is their own responsibility. >=20 > > Also, keeping the bugs assigned to package maintainers will still > > allow them to try to get that pending bugs fixed (or resolved in some > > way) as they will take care more about that specific package status. >=20 > Package maintainers have better things to do. While it would allow > for example the GNOME team to maintain GNOME 2 which sticks around; it > actually happening is another story as they want to see GNOME 2 go, > because maintaining multiple versions of GNOME costs too much time. >=20 > > If we get that bugs assigned to arch teams, they will likely be > > ignored by both parts, getting worse. >=20 > At this point the arch team can realize that keeping the version around > is an unrealistic goal, they can then take a decision to stop keeping > it around and thus remove it; if needed, taking additional steps. You are still assuming that the arch team is fully staffed. If they are not, the old versions of packages still remain in the tree indefinitely. As a maintainer, at some point, I don't want them around. Keeping them around can force me to keep old migration code for example that automates upgrading to new versions longer than I would have to otherwise. William --EeQfGwPcQSOJBaQU Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAlMBJKEACgkQblQW9DDEZThdtACdHzGPN2AQbu5QjDywcmoxcl4g TawAn3aqaeV3FVEKEgO8/FQdpN8uSenY =TaOd -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --EeQfGwPcQSOJBaQU--