[gentoo-dev] Re: robo-stable bugs

[Michael Palimaka <kensington@gentoo.org>]

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.