On 05/22/13 13:06, Michael Palimaka wrote:
> On 22/05/2013 20:41, Thomas Sachau wrote:
>> Michael Palimaka schrieb:
>>> On 22/05/2013 20:07, viv...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> On 05/22/13 11:43, Michael Palimaka wrote:
>>>>> On 22/05/2013 19:22, viv...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> On 05/21/13 23:38, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
>>>>>>> Am Dienstag, 21. Mai 2013, 15:38:44 schrieb Thomas Sachau:
>>>>>>>> And if a maintainer is not responding within 30 days, you can ping
>>>>>>>> him
>>>>>>>> or, without a response, try to get a different maintainer. Just
>>>>>>>> assuming
>>>>>>>> that a stable request is ok without a maintainer response is
>>>>>>>> really
>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>> a good idea.
>>>>>>> If none of the listed maintainers responds to a bug in 30 days in
>>>>>>> any way, the
>>>>>>> package is effectively unmaintained.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> And thus its risky to mark it stable.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> That's why we have arch teams in the first place, to test beforehand.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> The risky part is about the after, not the before, to avoid the risks
>>>> arch teams should keep the package working *after* it has stabilized.
>>>> Seem to be a good case for those things that need to be evaluated case
>>>> by case and could not be written in stone.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> I am confused as to what you are proposing. Do you want arch teams to
>>> continually test packages that are already in stable to make sure they
>>> haven't broken somehow?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> The point is probably, that when you stable a package with inactive
>> maintainer, there will be noone following the opened bugs against this
>> new version.
>>
>> So this looks like a case, where one should ask for a new maintainer,
>> who then decides about the stable versions instead of doing
>> auto-stabilization.
>>
> If the maintainer is inactive, presumably nobody is looking at bugs
> for the old version either.
>
>
And the circle is closed since we started with the correlation "no
answer to stable bug in 30 days" => "package unmantained" ;-)
