On Tue, Apr 17, 2007 at 09:50:26PM +0200, Stefan Schweizer wrote:
> On 4/17/07, Doug Goldstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Bugs that are created for the purpose of getting arches to keyword or
> >stabilize a particular package should initially be assigned to the
> >herd/maintainer of said package with all requested arches being CCed.
>
> As a maintainer I have to deal with many stable/keywording requests.
> Those are bugs that generally hang around in my bugzilla queries and
> fill my mailbox and I do not have any ability to help there or fix
> them. Those bugmails constitute spam for my mailbox.
>
> It would be cool to implement a [EMAIL PROTECTED] alias just to
> assign those bugs to so that we maintainers do not need to see them.
Are you thereby saying you don't care enough whether the arch teams
stable your packages to keep track of it? As a package maintainer I
prefer to keep track of the status of any of my keywording bugs.
>
> >Once the last remaining arch has completed the bug, it is up to them to
> >close it. They know it's up to them to close it since the bug is
> >assigned directly to them.
That happens already unless there's still undecided questions on the bug
(sometimes users add what might be important questions and it's up to
the maintainer to decide how to handle that).
>
> In my opinion the last architecture should also remove the old ebuild
> they have just made obsolete by stabling/keywording the new version,
> since they commit to the directory anyway.
I disagree very much with this sentiment. There's many good reasons for
wanting to leave more than one stable version in the tree. If you want
the last arch team to remove the ebuild when they're done you can
usually just state so in the keywording bug and the arch team will
follow the request.
Regards,
Bryan Østergaard
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
