On 02/10/11 20:36, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote: > Il giorno gio, 10/02/2011 alle 19.44 +0100, Krzysztof Pawlik ha scritto: >> >> I don't agree with that - QA doesn't give anyone a silver bullet for >> killing >> whatever you want (or whatever you think should die). Maintainer must >> be >> *always* notified/pinged/mailed/im'ed/phoned/poked when his package is >> going to >> be masked & removed, if he's responsive then getting his ACK on the >> matter >> shouldn't be a problem, if not... at least you've tried. > > Please make up your mind on what you don't agree with.
You've just removed the relevant quote, so let me add it again: Diego: Sorry but it really matters very little whether maintainer acks at all, *if the package fails to build*. Andreas: <nothing for this line> Me: I don't agree with that ... [cut] Is that clear enough? > We don't need the ACK but we don't go around masking packages just > because we feel like it. What gets the "Masked for removal by QA" > treatment doesn't need an ACK because it's always stuff that was left > untouched for months if not years. > > To rephrase it so that you can get it: > > WE DON'T GO AROUND REMOVING ACTIVELY MAINTAINED PACKAGES. (your caps lock is on, please turn it off, thank you) > But when the package is unmaintained for months, we don't _need_ the > ACK, nor we'd have to say "we're given the go by the maintainer" or > "maintainer timeout". We simply don't do that if there *is* an active, > interested maintainer. [cut] I don't exactly see how what you've written is of any relevance to the main point of this - the original issue was *extremely* simple: whenever maintainer's (active, inactive, last maintainer, whatever) ACK should be mentioned in the message that ends up in p.mask -- according to me and Andreas: yes. Look at it as a kind of 'Signed-Off'. -- Krzysztof Pawlik <nelchael at gentoo.org> key id: 0xF6A80E46 desktop-misc, java, vim, kernel, python, apache...
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
