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 129C71381F3 for ; Wed, 22 May 2013 15:09:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 3C987E07F6; Wed, 22 May 2013 15:08:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 580B5E07D8 for ; Wed, 22 May 2013 15:08:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.1.160] (CPE002401f30b73-CM001cea3ddad8.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com [99.224.181.112]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: axs) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id CBED133E18D for ; Wed, 22 May 2013 15:08:49 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <519CDF84.4020701@gentoo.org> Date: Wed, 22 May 2013 11:08:52 -0400 From: Ian Stakenvicius User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130516 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 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> <519CA8FC.5070308@gmail.com> <519CC22F.7010601@gentoo.org> <20130522165151.189c064a@marga.jer-c2.orkz.net> In-Reply-To: <20130522165151.189c064a@marga.jer-c2.orkz.net> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6a1pre Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 37a1e4e8-4cbc-4c9f-b110-37c14cae3c2f X-Archives-Hash: d79803325ca1d7c9db444671a3417be6 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 On 22/05/13 10:51 AM, Jeroen Roovers wrote: > On Wed, 22 May 2013 09:03:43 -0400 Ian Stakenvicius > wrote: > >>> And the circle is closed since we started with the correlation >>> "no answer to stable bug in 30 days" => "package unmantained" >>> ;-) >>> >> >> This could actually work .... > > Then we'd get the Ubuntu/Launchpad situation, where several bugs > that I filed more than 4 years ago are still being actively flipped > from on to off and back, invalid to confirmed to wontfix to cantfix > and so on for various reasons, including that the actual > maintainers of the bugs' targets didn't respond in time. It > definitely put me off filing any new bug reports against Ubuntu > packages. Possibly forever. > > > jer > (reading this, I have a fully feeling this was actually in response to the other email I wrote, relating to status changes; however in case it wasn't...) ... just trying to wrap my head around how this would play out: 1- stabilization bug filed 2- no response for 30 days 3- timeout script marks package for maintainer-needed (say, by adding a keyword and a comment) .. script should check devaway first on the maintainers, if devaway then stop at #2. 4- say, another 30 days timeout (longer? how about 90?) 5- a team (treecleaners? or other?) actually marks package maintainer-needed (removing keyword from the bug), assuming the maintainer(s) are not devaway. 6- announcement that package is up for grabs (maybe just in the 'weekly summary'?) The "stabilization request" bug would still be valid and open even if the package moves to maintainer-needed; probably that indication would occur via a KEYWORD rather than a reassignment of the summary. Any dev that chose to get involved and cause deviation at any point in the above list, would stop the process in its tracks, afaict. I don't see how things would flip back again to repeat the whole process.... Note, on #3, it would really aid this process if the particular maintainer(s) of a package within a herd was listed in the metadata -- iirc for say, x11 herd, certain packages are only touched by one member of the herd even though it just has a tag. I think this could make things smoother for many interactions and not just the above. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux) iF4EAREIAAYFAlGc34QACgkQ2ugaI38ACPAYlQEAjVv44o1Ry3jpfAnFePYJEyBn FNZotaz/D71deOjsbT4A/2pvdMRE+BcmRhQmBj14zXlycwYARcPw8ayoP2kNi8Vh =27YH -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----