[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]
List: gentoo-dev
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Stabilisation procedure
From: Raymond Jennings <shentino () gmail ! com>
Date: 2016-11-29 8:30:15
Message-ID: CAGDaZ_o_XaKUvAN7OdNJDZc4Xn1tDGi-=e-gCHwzh6z1x-AJCA () mail ! gmail ! com
[Download RAW message or body]
On Sun, Nov 27, 2016 at 4:07 AM, Rich Freeman <rich0@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 27, 2016 at 5:56 AM, Raymond Jennings <shentino@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 12:06 AM, Alice Ferrazzi <alicef@gentoo.org>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> What about maintainers that are away without writing it in their
> >> maintainer bug ?
> >> After how many days of no replay can be fair to touch their package ?
> >
> > If a developer lapses long enough and doesn't use devaway properly to
> mark
> > any waylaid packages as touchable...then that's probably an example of an
> > even bigger fish to fry that undertakers would handle anyway.
>
> A maintainer can be actively doing other work and still not respond to
> a stable request bug. The only thing the undertakers could do about
> it is get rid of them, which stops the work they were actively doing
> and doesn't make the situation with the bug they were ignoring any
> better.
>
> Are devs supposed to ignore stable request bugs? No. Has anybody
> come up with a way to make them not do it? Unfortunately not. Part
> of the issue is that some devs are just somewhat antisocial and prefer
> to do their own thing. For the most part as long as they're not
> actually actively making trouble for others we tend to accept this,
> since the only visible change to getting rid of them is less stuff
> getting done (the stuff they passively ignored still ends up being
> passively ignored).
>
That's actually a very good point.
This is why we tend to favor procedures that don't block progress by
> default. Just set a timeout. If the maintainer doesn't respond
> within x days then stabilization can proceed. Maybe make an exception
> for @system. We do similar things when devs want to touch each
> other's packages; if you don't get a response the assumption is that
> you can just go ahead.
>
I think this is a good idea.
> --
> Rich
>
>
[Attachment #3 (text/html)]
<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">On Sun, Nov 27, 2016 \
at 4:07 AM, Rich Freeman <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:rich0@gentoo.org" \
target="_blank">rich0@gentoo.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote \
class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc \
solid;padding-left:1ex"><span class="">On Sun, Nov 27, 2016 at 5:56 AM, Raymond \
Jennings <<a href="mailto:shentino@gmail.com">shentino@gmail.com</a>> \
wrote:<br> > On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 12:06 AM, Alice Ferrazzi <<a \
href="mailto:alicef@gentoo.org">alicef@gentoo.org</a>> wrote:<br> >><br>
>> What about maintainers that are away without writing it in their<br>
>> maintainer bug ?<br>
>> After how many days of no replay can be fair to touch their package ?<br>
><br>
</span><span class="">> If a developer lapses long enough and doesn't use \
devaway properly to mark<br> > any waylaid packages as touchable...then that's \
probably an example of an<br> > even bigger fish to fry that undertakers would \
handle anyway.<br> <br>
</span>A maintainer can be actively doing other work and still not respond to<br>
a stable request bug. The only thing the undertakers could do about<br>
it is get rid of them, which stops the work they were actively doing<br>
and doesn't make the situation with the bug they were ignoring any<br>
better.<br>
<br>
Are devs supposed to ignore stable request bugs? No. Has anybody<br>
come up with a way to make them not do it? Unfortunately not. Part<br>
of the issue is that some devs are just somewhat antisocial and prefer<br>
to do their own thing. For the most part as long as they're not<br>
actually actively making trouble for others we tend to accept this,<br>
since the only visible change to getting rid of them is less stuff<br>
getting done (the stuff they passively ignored still ends up being<br>
passively ignored).<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>That's actually a very \
good point.</div><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 \
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">This is why we tend to favor \
procedures that don't block progress by<br> default. Just set a timeout. If \
the maintainer doesn't respond<br> within x days then stabilization can proceed. \
Maybe make an exception<br> for @system. We do similar things when devs want to \
touch each<br> other's packages; if you don't get a response the assumption \
is that<br> you can just go ahead.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I think this \
is a good idea.</div><div> <br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 \
0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><span class="HOEnZb"><font \
color="#888888">--<br> Rich<br>
<br>
</font></span></blockquote></div><br></div></div>
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]
Configure |
About |
News |
Add a list |
Sponsored by KoreLogic