On 11/17/2016 01:07 PM, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 03:05:41PM +0100, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote:
>>> Isn't it implied that any stabilisation is approved by the maintainer?
>>> Has it ever been acceptable to go around stabilising random packages?
>>>
>>
>> Explicit > Implicit when we're updating things anyways.
>>
>> There are scenarios where e.g Security is calling for stabilization ,
>> I'll add some info to the draft security GLEP with some requirements for
>> when this can happen without maintainer involvement as well..
>>
>> Ultimately maintainer is responsible for the state of the stable tree
>> for the packages they maintain and should be taking proactive steps for
>> this also for security bugs, it doesn't "always" happen like that.....
> 
> The interaction of this proposal and the prior discussion of allow
> maintainers to document the maintenance policy of given packages is
> where it would really come into play.
> 
> Using two packages for examples:
> app-admin/diradm: I am the upstream author as well as the package
> maintainer. I care about it being marked stable. I'd prefer the normal
> policy of other people asking me (with timeout) before touching it.
> 
> app-admin/cancd: It's a very obscure package that I put in the tree
> because I needed it, but I haven't personally used it in many years. 
> I fix the packaging if it's broken only.
> I'm inclined to mark it with 'anybody-may-bump/fix/stabilize'.
> 
Agreed. For most of my packages, I really don't mind since we're all
working on Gentoo together, but it'd be super helpful if I was simply
notified in the event that a package I maintain has gotten a security
bump, patch, or stabilization. Sure, 'git log' and 'git blame' can
explain a few things, but if I was going to edit a package, I have the
maintainer's e-mail available right there in metadata.xml. To me it's a
courtesy that should be a requirement by default, while devs that don't
care can use whatever means we agree upon to indicate that they don't care.

This creates a "contact first" practice, which it seems we want to
encourage. If someone isn't responsive and/or away, that complicates
things, but if it's a security concern or the last blocker in a big
stabilization effort (looking at you, tcl 8.6...), then it makes sense
to just go ahead and make the bumps necessary.

-- 
Daniel Campbell - Gentoo Developer
OpenPGP Key: 0x1EA055D6 @ hkp://keys.gnupg.net
fpr: AE03 9064 AE00 053C 270C  1DE4 6F7A 9091 1EA0 55D6