Michael Palimaka schrieb: > On 22/05/2013 20:07, viv...@gmail.com wrote: >> On 05/22/13 11:43, Michael Palimaka wrote: >>> On 22/05/2013 19:22, viv...@gmail.com wrote: >>>> On 05/21/13 23:38, Andreas K. Huettel wrote: >>>>> Am Dienstag, 21. Mai 2013, 15:38:44 schrieb Thomas Sachau: >>>>>> And if a maintainer is not responding within 30 days, you can ping >>>>>> him >>>>>> or, without a response, try to get a different maintainer. Just >>>>>> assuming >>>>>> that a stable request is ok without a maintainer response is really >>>>>> not >>>>>> a good idea. >>>>> If none of the listed maintainers responds to a bug in 30 days in >>>>> any way, the >>>>> package is effectively unmaintained. >>>>> >>>> And thus its risky to mark it stable. >>>> >>>> >>> That's why we have arch teams in the first place, to test beforehand. >>> >>> >> The risky part is about the after, not the before, to avoid the risks >> arch teams should keep the package working *after* it has stabilized. >> Seem to be a good case for those things that need to be evaluated case >> by case and could not be written in stone. >> >> > I am confused as to what you are proposing. Do you want arch teams to > continually test packages that are already in stable to make sure they > haven't broken somehow? > > > The point is probably, that when you stable a package with inactive maintainer, there will be noone following the opened bugs against this new version.
So this looks like a case, where one should ask for a new maintainer, who then decides about the stable versions instead of doing auto-stabilization. -- Thomas Sachau Gentoo Linux Developer
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
