Chris Gianelloni wrote: [snip] > > There's a couple more that I wouldn't mind seeing as things developers > can do without the maintainer, but I can see how these might be a bit > more controversial, so I'm asking for input. > > - Version bumps where the only requirement is to "cp" the ebuild This is more on a per package basis. it's not fair to force the maintainer to support a new version before he feels it's ready. For example, I'd love to bump games-simulation/simutrans but Mr_Bones_ claims it's unstable and doesn't want it bumped. It wouldn't be fair to him for me to bump it unless I took the burden of support.
> - (for arch teams) Stabilization of new revisions of an already stable > package - An example of this would be being able to stabilize foo-1.0-r2 > if foo-1.0 (or foo-1.0-r1) is already stable, but not if only foo-0.9 is > stable. arch teams are the definitive authority on keywording for their arch. That said, if there is a disagreement between maintainer and arch team, the support burden falls on whoever did the keyword. Teamwork should solve this problem every time. I think the territoriality issue is one of support burden more than anything else. --taco -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
