On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 8:07 AM, Alexis Ballier <aball...@gentoo.org> wrote: > On Wed, 7 Aug 2013 11:04:28 +0200 > "Andreas K. Huettel" <dilfri...@gentoo.org> wrote: >> That's fine, bug wranglers are doing a great job there. >> >> However, I'm also sick of getting bugmail because $RANDOM_DEV thinks >> * TRACKER is better than Tracker, >> * every atom needs a "=" in front, and > > This is wrong btw. Some people already closed some bugs like 'rekeyword > =cat/pkg-version' because said version was not in tree anymore. Heck, > this was months later and there was a newer version. Now I just fill > 'rekeyword latest cat/pkg' and expect people not to mess with summary.
I think the proper workflow in a situation like this is: 1. (Optional) Random interested party sends bug to maintainer asking for keywording. That one is not tagged with a version for the reasons you state. 2. Maintainer agrees and picks a stable candidate, and modifies the subject to include a specific version. At the appropriate time archs are CC'ed. If you want to STABLEREQ a package you can't just target the "latest version" - maintainers should be picking stable targets and many maintainers bump packages weekly and drop the old version so that none of them hit the 30-day threshold. Maintainers should be cooperative in getting packages stabilized as long as it makes sense (some packages are inherently incompatible with the stable concept, such as ones dependent on some cloud API that changes without warning). Rich
