On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 3:41 AM, Pacho Ramos <[email protected]> wrote: > Also, keeping the bugs assigned to package maintainers will still allow > them to try to get that pending bugs fixed (or resolved in some way) as > they will take care more about that specific package status. If we get > that bugs assigned to arch teams, they will likely be ignored by both > parts, getting worse.
Well, that depends on your perspective. If they fix them by deleting the old version, then whether they've made things better or worse is a matter of philosophy. That's basically the counter-argument to removing old versions. If the newer version doesn't work at all, then the old buggy version is superior. It is better to have the bugs ignored, than to pester the maintainer until the package is disabled entirely. Honestly, this whole conversation seems rather theoretical. What I haven't heard from is the minor arch leads. Actually, looking at the base project page, it seems like half of them don't even have leads. The other issue is that at least some devs have been stabilizing new packages on minor archs for which the council decided to drop stable keywords. How to handle that is on the next agenda as well. Basically all of this boils down to whether it is a good compromise to redefine "stable" to something different on minor archs so that they can make some use of the keyword, and do it without driving maintainers nuts. I don't have a big problem with that, as long as it is done in a way that doesn't place any burden on anybody who doesn't use the minor arch (including bug wranglers, maintainers, etc). Rich
