On 22/05/2013 20:41, Thomas Sachau wrote:
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.
If the maintainer is inactive, presumably nobody is looking at bugs for
the old version either.
