On Sat, 15 Feb 2014 16:53:22 -0600
William Hubbs <[email protected]> wrote:
> The problem with this is, what if it is more than one arch team? Which
> one do you assign it to?
Oh the fun we had in the past when bugs got assigned to one arch team
with a few others CC'd and no maintainer in sight (because maybe the
maintainer was the reporter, or was blanky assumed to be known). Or when
another arch alias got CC'd later on. Or when a maintainer got fed up
waiting and reassigned to an arch team in a "rage quit". And so on. It
makes very messy bug reports. Musical chairs, anyone?
> 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?
Again, where is the man power for that? :-)
It's the maintainers that this problem hurts most, so they could and
should be fixing it themselves - after a few months of waiting,
reminding arch teams and gritting your teeth over it, just remove the
old stable ebuilds[1].
jer
[1] Where possible. If this happens with non-dev, non-experimental
architectures and keeping the old ebuilds is a real problem, the
architecture's status should be reconsidered. As has been done on
this mailing list time and again. If an arch team cannot even be
bothered to keep @system up to date, then why bother pretending
it's anywhere near "stable"?
