> If anyone has any examples of where they really are being held back and > where they really have given the arch teams plenty of time to do > something, I'd like to see them... Somehow I doubt it happens very > often, if at all.
Why? You aren't the person I or anyone else has to make a case to. In fact, I never would have mailed the list about this to prevent this very type of potentially-out-of-control discussion from occurring, except that the e-mail from Mike said that discussion topics needed to be sent to the list. We currently get rid of packages that are unmaintained or are old enough that they pose technical problems for developers with today's tools. I see no difference in establishing some similar kinds criteria for arch team keywords (which I'm not even asking for. I'm simply asking for dialogue to determine what kinds of criteria would be appropriate, if any). Similarly, what would the Gentoo policy be if at some time in the future an arch team had no members? What if it had two members, but they were unable to keep up with stabilization requests and were running 6-12 months behind? "Sorry, there isn't anybody who can mark that stable, but we're hoping to get someone on the team this year" isn't a valid answer in my book. I have no idea what the process is to add an "officially" support arch to the tree, but certainly it's more than just one guy making a few commits. There's some process that has to be gone through, right? Well, there also needs to be an exit strategy for when lack of interest in maintenance no longer means that arch should be supported. But right now, all I'm asking for it when it's appropriate for an ebuild maintainer to not have to spend any more time waiting for the arch team to respond to requests. If you believe that number is 1 billion days, fine. Those of us who have faced the issue and disagree can also make our opinions heard to the council, and let them decide what should be done, again, if anything. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
