On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 4:05 PM, M. J. Everitt <m.j.ever...@iee.org> wrote: > > I dunno where you've been lately, Rich, but for most devs, would-be > devs, and observers .. there -are- no arch teams left .. just a few Arch > devs, or arch 'people' ..
Obviously. I was describing how the arch team process worked when there were arch teams. The fact that most arch teams are fairly defunct is the reason that stable keywords have steadily been dropped. > > This is why stabilisation, if not for individual package maintainers on > amd64, has become a joke, save for Ago's efforts, and recent efforts by > kensington to streamline the effort for the likes of ago with his bot, > and one or two other arch stabilisers (who I know exist, but not by name > or nick). Sure. If nobody is maintaining stable keywords on an arch, then there shouldn't be stable keywords on that arch, unless the stable keywords are used for a different purpose and maintainers are free to downgrade them at any time. > > There is no, and has not been, in the time I've been involved with > Gentoo, any "pact" or "contract" between arch teams/devs and maintainers > whatsoever, anything is only ever done as a 'favour' or if someone > nudges the AT after the appropriate bug has been filed. > As a formal documented arrangement, no "pact" or "contract" has ever existed between arch teams and maintainers. However, this is basically the implicit basis for the system and the consequence of our documented policies, such as the policy that maintainers may not remove the highest stable version of a package. These policies make no sense unless arch teams are held to a standard of timely stabilization. There has never been a need to document such a "contract" because the Council has been maintaining it all along. When people complain that an arch team is unresponsive, the Council removes stable support for the arch. I'm describing reality here, not written policies. -- Rich
