From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([69.77.167.62] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1JZ8jY-0005Au-MJ for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Tue, 11 Mar 2008 17:57:52 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id E27E5E069B; Tue, 11 Mar 2008 17:55:41 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vms040pub.verizon.net (vms040pub.verizon.net [206.46.252.40]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 12D56E0773; Tue, 11 Mar 2008 15:26:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: from gw.thefreemanclan.net ([72.81.7.29]) by vms040.mailsrvcs.net (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-6.01 (built Apr 3 2006)) with ESMTPA id <0JXK008VQOA4F7Y1@vms040.mailsrvcs.net>; Tue, 11 Mar 2008 10:27:42 -0500 (CDT) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by gw.thefreemanclan.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 41D321240CA; Tue, 11 Mar 2008 11:24:39 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2008 11:24:39 -0400 From: Richard Freeman Subject: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-core] Keywords policy In-reply-to: To: Alec Warner Cc: Ryan Hill , Jeroen Roovers , gentoo-core@lists.gentoo.org, gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Message-id: <47D6A437.8030308@gentoo.org> 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=ISO-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit References: <20080301103002.A2AE266A22@smtp.gentoo.org> <200803081610.33774.philantrop@gentoo.org> <20080310060849.4c2bf0c9@epia.jer-c2.orkz.net> <47D4F26C.7050701@gentoo.org> <20080310145044.19146whhfp0x6h0k@www2.mailstation.de> <20080310162619.50952j57if1ecwt4@www2.mailstation.de> <20080311044938.72401cd7@epia.jer-c2.orkz.net> <47D60D36.6090402@gentoo.org> User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.12 (X11/20080301) X-Archives-Salt: 45d69684-855d-4c5f-b2ec-af835ea15dc6 X-Archives-Hash: 200c7c9300a552dcbf10337829f3df30 Alec Warner wrote: > On 3/10/08, Ryan Hill wrote: >> You're still not getting this. The KDE team did not _want_ these ebuilds >> keyworded. That's why they _weren't_ keyworded. That's why there was no bug >> filed, saying "hey we dropped these keywords" because they _did not want_ you to >> add them back yet. When the ebuilds were of sufficient quality that they could >> be tested, then a bug is filed, the ebuilds are tested, and then re-keyworded. > > Right, but you did not make your want known, so how is Jer to know? > I don't really want to get into the specifics of this situation but wanted to raise a question of policy. My understanding is that arch teams shouldn't keyword anything without the OK of the maintainer - usually in the form of a STABLEREQ bug. When I get stable requests from users I don't act on them until I hear from the maintainer for this reason. I know that at one point there was discussion of having a ~maint/maint keywords that would be used just to indicate the intent of the maintainer for each package. Then all the usual keyword-comparison tools could be used to detect packages that are ready for keywording. I would be pretty annoyed as a maintainer if I started getting a deluge of bug reports and complaints from end users who didn't intend to run broken software if somebody unmasked or keyworded something that I didn't intend anybody to be using aside from a few brave souls willing to risk everything to try out some new software. -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list