Alec Warner wrote: > On 3/10/08, Ryan Hill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> You're still not getting this. The KDE team did not _want_ these ebuilds >> keyworded. That's why they _weren't_ keyworded. That's why there was no >> bug >> filed, saying "hey we dropped these keywords" because they _did not want_ >> you to >> add them back yet. When the ebuilds were of sufficient quality that they >> could >> be tested, then a bug is filed, the ebuilds are tested, and then >> re-keyworded. > > Right, but you did not make your want known, so how is Jer to know? >
I don't really want to get into the specifics of this situation but wanted to raise a question of policy. My understanding is that arch teams shouldn't keyword anything without the OK of the maintainer - usually in the form of a STABLEREQ bug. When I get stable requests from users I don't act on them until I hear from the maintainer for this reason. I know that at one point there was discussion of having a ~maint/maint keywords that would be used just to indicate the intent of the maintainer for each package. Then all the usual keyword-comparison tools could be used to detect packages that are ready for keywording. I would be pretty annoyed as a maintainer if I started getting a deluge of bug reports and complaints from end users who didn't intend to run broken software if somebody unmasked or keyworded something that I didn't intend anybody to be using aside from a few brave souls willing to risk everything to try out some new software. -- [email protected] mailing list
