On Wed, 2013-08-07 at 09:35 -0400, Rich Freeman wrote: > 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
Alexis was talking about KEYWORDREQ, not STABLEREQ. When asking to readd a keyword, you almost always want that keyword for whatever is the highest version in a specific slot, even if that version has been in the tree for three days, and you filed the keywording bug two months ago.
