Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn schrieb: > Thomas Sachau schrieb: >> Uhm, automagic stabilization without maintainer ok? This sounds like a >> bad idea. Doing a batch CC-ing after maintainer gave his ok or >> anything similar, which starts, when someone actually aproved the >> stable going is all ok, but doing this automaticly may get packages >> become stable, which are not intended to become so and should have >> never been there. > > This is why the maintainer can object within 30 days (or so) or block > the stabilization bug with another one which details the reasons why the > package should not be stabilized. > > > Best regards, > Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn > > >
I guess, you missed my point, so let me repeat it: Automagic stabilization is a bad idea. And just because a maintainer can opt-out per bug, it does not change the automagic behaviour nor does it make this thing any better. In this case, there are enough possible cases, where a maintainer does miss the bug, so again a package may become stable, also it should never have been a stable candidate. So again: Automatic scripts with maintainer opt-in are ok, anything else is a bad idea. Beside this, i have never seen any announcement about such scripting behaviour, which makes this automagic even worse, since it is unexpected for maintainers, who might e.g. keep a stable request bug open for later or to avoid dups. -- Thomas Sachau Gentoo Linux Developer
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
