All, It is becoming more and more obvious that we do not have enough manpower on the arch teams, even some of the ones we consider major arch's, to keep up with stabilization requests. For example, there is this bug [1], which is blocking the stabilization of several important packages.
I spoke to one of the team members on one of the affected arch teams on this bug a couple of weeks ago, and was told just that stabilization takes time. I pointed out that this was affecting important packages and I felt that the arch teams should step up their efforts when it comes to important packages. The arch team member disagreed unless the issue is a security bug. The council decision below [2] has made it possible to move on for some arch's by removing old stable versions of packages 90 days after the stable request is filed and the arch teams are added if there has been no action by the specific arch teams listed in the decision, and those arch teams are the only ones on the bug. I think we need a global policy that either helps keep the stable tree up to date or reverts an architecture to ~ over time if the arch team can't keep up. Keeping old software in the stable tree, I think we can agree, isn't good because newer software, besides having new features, will have bug fixes. Also, I think we can agree that allowing maintainers to stabilize new software on architectures they do not have access to wouldn't be good. I want comments wrt two ideas: 1. I think maintainers should be able to stabilize their packages on arch's they have access to. I think this is allowed by some arch teams, but I think it would be good to formalize it. 2. I would like to see the policy below applied to all arch's [2]. Thoughts? William [1] http://bugs.gentoo.org/487332 [2] http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/meeting-logs/20130917-summary.txt
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
