On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 9:31 AM, Jeroen Roovers <[email protected]> wrote: > 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.
It achieves getting them off of the maintainer's radar. My goal isn't to fix the package, my goal is to eliminate it as a burden on the maintainer. Basically that one version of the package is now maintained by the arch team. Yes, I know they won't maintain it. The only people that impacts are those who use the arch, who are free to join the arch team and help out. My sense is that they'd prefer having it around to having it deleted. > > It's been done like this since forever. Nobody is disputing this at all. The reason why this thread seems to go on forever is that it seems like the users of the minor archs don't like the status quo. > >> That leaves the choice with the minor arch team, with deletion being >> the default. > > Yes, but "understaffed" so nobody is making any choices here. Well, if they make no choice then the maintainer deletes the package. That's what you want, right? The package would only stay around if the minor arch asked them to. If they don't do that, then nobody can complain. However, I don't think it makes sense to enact changes like these unless the minor arch teams actually speak up about wanting the changes. If they don't I'd be inclined to just clarify that maintainers are welcome to trim old stable versions on minor archs if the bugs are older than n days. Rich
