On Sun, 16 Feb 2014 09:00:16 +0100
Tom Wijsman <[email protected]> wrote:
> In this case the maintainer isn't needed on the bug anymore.
You can't simply drop your old toys when you get bored with them.
You're leaving a mess in the tree and blaming others. You have achieved
nothing else.
> > 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?
>
> The music seems unfit for the situation, how does this apply here?
Google "musical chairs".
> > > 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? :-)
>
> The lack of manpower is a given by this thread, it's more about
> relief.
So maintainers should clean up their old ebuilds and not expect
understaffed arch teams to do it for them. Since elsewhere you actually
agreed with WilliamH agreeing with me on this point, it isn't clear what
you're meaningfully trying to add here.
> Exactly, it's that simple; but, it will be reverted per policy.
Is the punctuation supposed to mean anything here? I can't make sense
of this otherwise.
> Stabilization requires tons of manpower to really work; the only way
> to get that to happen with high efficiency and effectivity is to
> bring a lot more people to the table, and let it also be done by the
> users that already have interest in running ~ on their systems.
You're again negating the premise that the team that is expected to do
the work is understaffed. This isn't a company where you simply hire
some more people to do the work or bring in an interim manager to fix
a team. The way volunteer work gets done is that you let stuff bitrot
for a while, make users suffer, and that if no one turns up to do the
work for you, someone will come in and clean up.
jer
