On Sat, 15 Feb 2014 11:41:57 +0100
Tom Wijsman <tom...@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > Assigning bugs so arch teams is cosmetic at best.
s|so|to|
> While it was not explained here, the idea can also move the actual
> maintenance of the ebuild to the arch team; such that it becomes the
> arch team's responsibility to deal with it, or rather don't deal with
> it
How would that ever work? You have some old cat/pkg/pkg-version.ebuild
that you no longer want to maintain, but which happens to be the latest
stable for $ARCH, which is apparently understaffed because they $ARCH
hasn't tended to a related bug report in months, and now you want to
leave the ebuild in place and also expect $ARCH to start maintaining
it? How does $ARCH have the man power to do that, again?
> and have it act as a nagging reminder that stabilization really is
> due. This also reflects the importance of the package, as it will
> receive more attention and thus be more verbose towards the arch team.
No, you're wrong there. Nobody is reading those bugzilla e-mails -
nobody is working on keywording/stabilisation for $ARCH. "Nagging" is
pointless when nobody hears you, and an e-mail from bugzilla isn't
magically better prioritised when Assignee: changes.
The only reasonable course of action is to start dropping stable
keywords for $ARCH, after a reasonable timeout. It gets tricky if this
involves removing many keywords on dependencies, but if that's what you
have to do to keep cat/pkg (and eclasses and profiles) in shape, then
by all means _help_ _out_ $ARCH by doing it for them. If that means
removing stable/unstable support for an entire DM or scripting
framework, then so be it.
As long as @system is keyworded properly (by which I really really
really mean something better than a "compile only" test - you know who
you are), $ARCH users will normally be able to figure out how to emerge
unstable packages themselves.
> > Recently I've seen a few keywording/stabilisation bug reports
> > assigned to arch teams again. It's really annoying. If you've
> > started doing this, then please stop before people start to think
> > it's a good idea. It's not.
>
> Depends on what the arch teams think of this
No, it doesn't. Package maintainers are responsible for their bug
reports, and Assignee: should reflect that.
Maintaining a stable tree for an arch team means that someone on that
team needs to do more than scratch their own itches - slacking should
be fixed by relieving their burden, not pile on more, because that's
precisely how volunteer work ultimately doesn't get done.
jer
