On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 11:41:57AM +0100, Tom Wijsman wrote: > On Sat, 15 Feb 2014 01:28:55 +0100 > Jeroen Roovers <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Fri, 14 Feb 2014 19:59:58 +0100 > > Tom Wijsman <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > And that can work without a problem if we have a mechanism > > > > in place to relieve maintainers of those bugs. > > > > > > Such mechanism could be to assign those bug to the arch team, this > > > idea came up at FOSDEM; it won't solve the lack of manpower, but it > > > will at least relieve the maintainers and make the problem more > > > visible. > > > > Assigning bugs so arch teams is cosmetic at best. > > 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 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.
The problem with this is, what if it is more than one arch team? Which one do you assign it to? If we want a separate assignee for old stabilizations, what about a separate project that handles this, or maybe we could assign the bugs to m-n or something until the arch teams catch up? William
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
