[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       gentoo-dev
Subject:    Re: [gentoo-dev] Slacker arches
From:       "Paweł Hajdan, Jr." <phajdan.jr () gentoo ! org>
Date:       2011-01-30 18:12:21
Message-ID: 4D45AA05.30109 () gentoo ! org
[Download RAW message or body]


On 1/25/11 1:30 PM, Markos Chandras wrote:
> QA is not a solution to everything. The problem Tomas is trying to
> counter here is the idle/slacking arches. If the arch is active but hav=
e some
> concerns regarding the stabilization then let the maintainer deal with
> it. This is the way we do it now anyway
>>
>> Also, we should have someone to check for stale stabilization bugs. I'=
m
>> not sure if all reporters are able to take care of that, especially if=

>> they have a lot of bugs open.
>>
> Thats really their problem. Arches can always remove themselves from th=
e
> bugs. No need to care about stale bugs. If the maintainers don't care
> then we(arches) don't care.

I was mostly thinking about cases like https://bugs.gentoo.org/329633
where indeed arches remove themselves from the bug, but there is a
dispute between them and the maintainer about the correct course of actio=
n.

The usual "conflict resolution" procedure would be to contact the team
lead, and eventually the council. However, I'm not sure whether that
would be optimal for stabilization bugs.

Pawe=C5=82


["signature.asc" (application/pgp-signature)]

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]