On Sun, 06 Jan 2008 11:36:06 -0600 Ryan Hill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > How will providing specific examples of how people are being held up > > not be beneficial to the decision-making process? > > First you have to acknowledge that old perpetually open bugs and old > unmaintained ebuilds are a maintenance burden. There seems to be a > consensus among maintainers that they are, but when given the > examples of xfce and media-* you responded that those are not a > priority for the archs in question. Well, that's nice, but they are > for the maintainers of those herds and that's what we're talking > about. We're not actively looking for ways to dump more work on the > arch teams, but we're also tired of having more work dumped on us. > We're looking for a solution that has both sides happy here, but that > won't happen if you don't admit there's a problem.
Ok, so explain: * How perpetually open bugs are a maintenance burden. They don't generate emails and they don't require any work on the maintainer's part. Is the mere fact that they show up in queries all you're concerned about, and if so, have you considered either adapting your queries or requesting a special keyword to make such bugs easier to filter? * How unmaintained ebuilds are a maintenance burden. Doesn't that contradict itself? -- Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
