"Paweł Hajdan, Jr." schrieb: > On 5/21/13 6:38 AM, Thomas Sachau wrote: >> 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. > > Thomas, this effort is going on for over a year now (and has been > discussed on gentoo-dev). If it's only now you've noticed, maybe the sky > isn't falling after all.
I dont remember any auto-stabilization being accepted, but maybe this happened in number 30 or 50 of some thread, where i already got bored and did not follow it any more. And how should i notice your script, when it never applies to my packages? ;-) > Note that there is a tradeoff here: I really started the stabilizations > after I've noticed how many bugs are fixed in ~arch that still affect > stable, but the fixing version didn't get stabilized. This is the > downside of an opt-in approach, since inactive maintainers are not going > to opt-in. > > Finally, everyone from metadata.xml is CC-ed. There is no "trying a > different maintainer" - all of them are there since day one. "trying a different maintainer" did mean re-assigning the package, when a maintainer is gone/inactive > > Please let me know if you still have concerns - ideally back them with > data and actual cases showing problems (or scenarios that can reasonably > be likely) instead of just saying it _might_ lead to breakages. Anything > _might_ lead to breakages, including taking no action here and allowing > bugs to be not fixed for stable. :) Give me the needed amount of time to create such data, dont miss the motivation for such project and i may do it. ;-) Some show cases: When a maintainer wants to stable at a later point in time or another version and keeps the bug open to re-use it, he would suddenly get your suggested version stable, also he did explicitly not give his go and did not add arches. And if a maintainer does not respond for a certain amount of time, i would not take it as a sign for a package to be stable, but instead of a sign, that the package will need a new maintainer, who can then check for the best fit for a stable candidate. After all, the latest version may be the upstream development branch, while latest stable already follows upstream stable branch. So creating stable bugs with your above requirements looks ok, the point i have a problem with is still the opt-out setting. -- Thomas Sachau Gentoo Linux Developer
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
