Dne 15. 08. 19 v 9:33 Miro Hrončok napsal(a):
> On 15. 08. 19 7:39, Vít Ondruch wrote:
>> Of course you might consider this special case, but apparently all the
>> other people who speak up had different special cases.
> "special cases aren't special enough to break the rules"

They had either "special" or "unique" cases. As you want. The point is
if there is no rule as retiring packages which has the last FTBFS bug in
ASSIGNED state for whatever reason, there is no rule to break. IOW
trying to define rules for this case is overkill.

At the end, if somebody cares about such cases, it should not be hard to
discover and act upon them, i.e. bugging the maintainer, fixing them,
taking over the maintenance etc.

> I still think that if somebody would need to keep package unretired
> for 1.5+ years, they have options:
>  - let it be retired, unretire, retag (as in: "I don't give a damn")
>  - request an exception with proper reasons (as in: "I have proper
> reasons")

Yes, right, but the maintainer already have taken action, they switched
their bugs from NEW to ASSIGNED. They had to evaluate it is worth of the
action. Why we should explicitly believe they did not do it in good faith?

> Just being able to let the package rot for 3+ releases is not good
> enough reason IMHO.

There needs to be taken action prior the package is left rotting!

Actually, do you happen to know how many components were retired?
According to compose report from 20190811 [1], I guess it was ~570
packages. How many of them had associated FTBFS BZs in "ASSIGNED" state
and for which version of Fedora? This would be interesting statistics to
know. My guess is that it was 100 BZs at most, but probably much lower



devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 

Reply via email to