-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 05/21/2013 07:43 PM, Thomas Sachau wrote:
> Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina schrieb:
>> On 05/21/2013 09:20 AM, Markos Chandras wrote:
>>> On 21 May 2013 13:21, Thomas Sachau <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> "Paweł Hajdan, Jr." schrieb:
>>>>> Remember this is supposed to _help_ Gentoo. You can opt out of the bugs
>>>>> (there is a package name and maintainer name regex in the script). You
>>>>> don't need to "hunt them down" - if you do nothing another script will
>>>>> just CC arches after 30 days.
>>>>>
>>>>> Paweł
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>>
>>>> Thomas Sachau
>>>> Gentoo Linux Developer
>>>>
>>
>>> If you don't read your bugmail in 30 days then that is a different
>>> problem. I like the way Paweł handles this at the moment. 30 days is
>>> enough time for active maintainers to object. We just can't afford
>>> waiting months for inactive maintainers to act.
> 
> Who said, that bugmail is ignored? Repeating myself, it may be
> accidently deleted by the dev or some software (hint: spam filters), it
> may actually even be ignored to re-use the bug later. Since i dont
> remember even seing a hint for the "will stable in 30 days without
> objection", the arch addition is even more a bad surprise for a maintainer.

With respect, if a dev is having their bugzie mail deleted by a spam
filter they need to get that fixed, and I should hope accidental
deletion is a rare enough event as to not play a significant role here.

I do, however, completely agree that there should be some way to leave
the bug open and state that it will be stabled later.  Would a comment
trigger this in the script?  That seems semi-sane.  If the maintainer
wanted to stabilize things they would cc arches, any other comment could
likely be understood to mean "don't auto-stable this".
> 
>>
>> I have to agree very strongly with this sentiment.  If I'm ignoring my
>> bugmail for 30 days and there are no (new) active bugs against the
>> package it should be stabilized.  The only time this shouldn't happen is
>> if there is a bug in the new version which isn't present in the old version.
> 
> See above
> 
>>
>> We all need to learn to either be more responsive or stop complaining
>> when other people fix our stuff.  If you don't respond to your bugmail
>> in 30 days then "active" maintainer is a bit of a stretch unless you
>> have devaway setup.
> 
> So with a devaway setup pointing to another dev, which wont get CCed nor
> asked, so cannot deny it, the package would become stable too, even when
> it should not. ;-)
> 
Specifically I meant we should exempt packages with a maintainer on
devaway from the auto-stabilization.


Please understand I don't mean to suggest that this process is perfect,
but it is valuable and it seems people are willing to improve it where
possible so I for one would love the help getting more things stabilized.

- -Zero
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
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=vISF
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Reply via email to