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 5345D1381F3 for ; Wed, 22 May 2013 11:18:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 4ED07E0871; Wed, 22 May 2013 11:18:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-bk0-f44.google.com (mail-bk0-f44.google.com [209.85.214.44]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3995FE086C for ; Wed, 22 May 2013 11:18:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-bk0-f44.google.com with SMTP id jc3so1024456bkc.17 for ; Wed, 22 May 2013 04:18:26 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=TpAn5sLRioW2UxjhDSQbf7+fY4s+Ksz3pUpTadlzkMU=; b=NkBK6r+z49NpnMWO88CeLgSNNQiyAEw4ntBrjYYYH/gXoXy0M1Dk6h6oRAI2ufRSar GQTfyu+y2MY9YlR94WLJKY7fjbmIGJ7sgxggYL14UuduU5wQ9QN3TqU8x6ZsCybDx9RZ RuTD1bI4tExlfjVEVfiYDbTb7bzBd6vm382Zm7yL9pT+roywsoq4h6iCwXgbqw+WyhFN N1hTMY+/Jm5G3HtX0I3SxillQ05Vh5XBrJv2orGSufoOeyt9JLdrrtnJLzHHjmWXWhdB wWoxMmO5fsyvR+W4dEN8QB7n7L4xeLdqX3PDIkbbsb9V4f44/fILLtAlyhwnz1s0VhX6 Z5kQ== X-Received: by 10.205.75.3 with SMTP id yy3mr3359722bkb.80.1369221506573; Wed, 22 May 2013 04:18:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.4.18] ([5.157.117.94]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id iy11sm1815601bkb.11.2013.05.22.04.18.24 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 22 May 2013 04:18:25 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <519CA8FC.5070308@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 22 May 2013 13:16:12 +0200 From: "vivo75@gmail.com" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130517 Thunderbird/17.0.6 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 To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org CC: Michael Palimaka Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: robo-stable bugs References: <519B78E4.9000702@gentoo.org> <201305212338.45482.dilfridge@gentoo.org> <519C8E3D.5010701@gmail.com> <519C98E0.2070508@gmail.com> <519CA0D9.2060404@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 7accd29c-5156-4d8d-ab71-82abe617f060 X-Archives-Hash: 52bd652e34cd0a9488879302b5e7b6fa On 05/22/13 13:06, Michael Palimaka wrote: > On 22/05/2013 20:41, Thomas Sachau wrote: >> Michael Palimaka schrieb: >>> On 22/05/2013 20:07, vivo75@gmail.com wrote: >>>> On 05/22/13 11:43, Michael Palimaka wrote: >>>>> On 22/05/2013 19:22, vivo75@gmail.com wrote: >>>>>> On 05/21/13 23:38, Andreas K. Huettel wrote: >>>>>>> Am Dienstag, 21. Mai 2013, 15:38:44 schrieb Thomas Sachau: >>>>>>>> And if a maintainer is not responding within 30 days, you can ping >>>>>>>> him >>>>>>>> or, without a response, try to get a different maintainer. Just >>>>>>>> assuming >>>>>>>> that a stable request is ok without a maintainer response is >>>>>>>> really >>>>>>>> not >>>>>>>> a good idea. >>>>>>> If none of the listed maintainers responds to a bug in 30 days in >>>>>>> any way, the >>>>>>> package is effectively unmaintained. >>>>>>> >>>>>> And thus its risky to mark it stable. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> That's why we have arch teams in the first place, to test beforehand. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> The risky part is about the after, not the before, to avoid the risks >>>> arch teams should keep the package working *after* it has stabilized. >>>> Seem to be a good case for those things that need to be evaluated case >>>> by case and could not be written in stone. >>>> >>>> >>> I am confused as to what you are proposing. Do you want arch teams to >>> continually test packages that are already in stable to make sure they >>> haven't broken somehow? >>> >>> >>> >> The point is probably, that when you stable a package with inactive >> maintainer, there will be noone following the opened bugs against this >> new version. >> >> So this looks like a case, where one should ask for a new maintainer, >> who then decides about the stable versions instead of doing >> auto-stabilization. >> > If the maintainer is inactive, presumably nobody is looking at bugs > for the old version either. > > And the circle is closed since we started with the correlation "no answer to stable bug in 30 days" => "package unmantained" ;-)