-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 On 22/05/13 10:51 AM, Jeroen Roovers wrote: > On Wed, 22 May 2013 09:03:43 -0400 Ian Stakenvicius > <a...@gentoo.org> wrote: > >>> And the circle is closed since we started with the correlation >>> "no answer to stable bug in 30 days" => "package unmantained" >>> ;-) >>> >> >> This could actually work .... > > Then we'd get the Ubuntu/Launchpad situation, where several bugs > that I filed more than 4 years ago are still being actively flipped > from on to off and back, invalid to confirmed to wontfix to cantfix > and so on for various reasons, including that the actual > maintainers of the bugs' targets didn't respond in time. It > definitely put me off filing any new bug reports against Ubuntu > packages. Possibly forever. > > > jer >
(reading this, I have a fully feeling this was actually in response to the other email I wrote, relating to status changes; however in case it wasn't...) ... just trying to wrap my head around how this would play out: 1- stabilization bug filed 2- no response for 30 days 3- timeout script marks package for maintainer-needed (say, by adding a keyword and a comment) .. script should check devaway first on the maintainers, if devaway then stop at #2. 4- say, another 30 days timeout (longer? how about 90?) 5- a team (treecleaners? or other?) actually marks package maintainer-needed (removing keyword from the bug), assuming the maintainer(s) are not devaway. 6- announcement that package is up for grabs (maybe just in the 'weekly summary'?) The "stabilization request" bug would still be valid and open even if the package moves to maintainer-needed; probably that indication would occur via a KEYWORD rather than a reassignment of the summary. Any dev that chose to get involved and cause deviation at any point in the above list, would stop the process in its tracks, afaict. I don't see how things would flip back again to repeat the whole process.... Note, on #3, it would really aid this process if the particular maintainer(s) of a package within a herd was listed in the metadata -- iirc for say, x11 herd, certain packages are only touched by one member of the herd even though it just has a <herd> tag. I think this could make things smoother for many interactions and not just the above. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux) iF4EAREIAAYFAlGc34QACgkQ2ugaI38ACPAYlQEAjVv44o1Ry3jpfAnFePYJEyBn FNZotaz/D71deOjsbT4A/2pvdMRE+BcmRhQmBj14zXlycwYARcPw8ayoP2kNi8Vh =27YH -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
