В Вск, 09/10/2011 в 22:28 +0000, Duncan пишет: > Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn posted on Sun, 09 Oct 2011 18:37:59 +0200 as > excerpted: > > > Duncan schrieb: > >> Libpng isn't held up that way, while the package still gets its 30 day > >> masking last-rites. No policy broken; no maintainer toes stepped on as > >> a result of the broken policy. No more nasty threads about (this) > >> broken policy and unhappy maintainers as a result! =:^) > > > > Actually removing a package that doesn't violate any (written) rules > > without maintainer consensus could be considered a violation of policy > > too. > > > > http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/devrel/recruiters/mentor.xml Respect > > existing maintainers: > > Never commit when someone else has clear ownership. Never commit on > > things with unclear ownership until you've tried to clear it up.
Samuli pretends here to act as a part of QA team (although he is not). Actually even whiteboard of stabilization bug tells #at _earliest_ 17 Oct" and thus there is really no sign for rush. This is the case where QA should voice and either explain why fast stabilization of libpng is so important or stop policy breakage. That said it became really common to break our own policies (with no attempts to amend policy). > You are correct, but AFAIK, that's one function of tree-cleaners (whether > or not the remover is actually on the tree-cleaner team), when packages > are broken due to going stale against current, and the bugs reporting the > problem remain open for months without (visible) movement (there's some > movement here, yes, but was it visible?). No treecleaners are supposed to be working on maintainer-needed packages only: http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/qa/treecleaners/index.xml > So, please, at LEAST honor the 30-day-in-mask bit. This must be honored. -- Peter.
