On Sun, 16 Feb 2014 09:22:49 -0500
Rich Freeman <[email protected]> wrote:
> Well, they can assign the burden to an understaffed team if the team
> wants them to.
Achieving nothing in the process, even if the understaffed team
actually responds.
> Perhaps an intermediate solution is that when a STABLEREQ gets stale
> the maintainer posts in it their intention to drop the old version in
> 30 days. The maintainer has to wait at least that long, and if during
> that time a minor arch team asks them to keep the old version around
> then all relevant bugs get reassigned to them, otherwise the
> maintainer is free to delete it.
It isn't policy, maybe, but that's just common sense:
1) Request stabilisation.
2) Ping and wait.
3) Ping and wait.
4) Ping and wait.
5) Solve the problem yourself.
It's been done like this since forever.
> That leaves the choice with the minor arch team, with deletion being
> the default.
Yes, but "understaffed" so nobody is making any choices here.
> Honestly, I'd probably be fine with the maintainer breaking the arch
> stable tree when removing the package. The arch stable tree isn't
> really stable in the first place if nobody is caring for it, and there
> really aren't any pretty solutions to that problem.
Indeed.
jer
