On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 06:58:47PM +0100, Tom Wijsman wrote: > On Sun, 16 Feb 2014 09:41:03 +0100 > Pacho Ramos <[email protected]> wrote: > > > El dom, 16-02-2014 a las 00:37 +0100, Jeroen Roovers escribió: > > [...] > > > > 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"? > > > > > > > I agree with Jeroen here. If the arch teams that are usually a bit > > behind are not able to fix the bugs, I doubt we will gain anything > > assigning bugs to them. Because of the way testing/stabilization bugs > > work, arch teams should always check the bugs with them CCed and, > > then, I don't think getting that bugs assigned to them would change > > much. > > That would be true if the context of this thread were the arch team; > however, the context of this thread is the maintainer as that is the > person experiencing the problem that was put forward. > > The solution here thus intends to address the maintainer, which benefits > from this; while it keeps the arch team's the same, whether the arch > team does more with this is their own responsibility. > > > 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. > > Package maintainers have better things to do. While it would allow > for example the GNOME team to maintain GNOME 2 which sticks around; it > actually happening is another story as they want to see GNOME 2 go, > because maintaining multiple versions of GNOME costs too much time. > > > If we get that bugs assigned to arch teams, they will likely be > > ignored by both parts, getting worse. > > At this point the arch team can realize that keeping the version around > is an unrealistic goal, they can then take a decision to stop keeping > it around and thus remove it; if needed, taking additional steps.
You are still assuming that the arch team is fully staffed. If they are not, the old versions of packages still remain in the tree indefinitely. As a maintainer, at some point, I don't want them around. Keeping them around can force me to keep old migration code for example that automates upgrading to new versions longer than I would have to otherwise. William
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
