On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 01:42:41PM -0500, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 1:11 PM, Peter Stuge <pe...@stuge.se> wrote: > > I certainly don't think the work needs to go away if the work is > > considered to be important. It's fine to have open bugs for years > > in the absence of a good solution. > > I get what you're saying, though there is still a cost to leaving the > bug open to years. In this case it means an old package stays in the > tree marked as stable. That either costs maintainers the effort to > keep it work, or they don't bother to keep in working in which case > users get saddled with issues.
Correct. > I am completely in support of making use of the priority field - if > something is causing issues by all means call attention to it. I bet > it would /help/ with the problem, but it won't make it go away. It might help, but, no, it will not make the problem go away. The issue is that the arch team and maintainer may have different ideas of what is high priority. If a maintainer opens a high priority stable request or bumps a stable request to high priority, there is no guarantee that the arch team will feel it should be prioritized the same way, and when that happens, users are stuck with issues from the old versions of the software. William
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
