On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 11:42:15AM +0100, justin wrote: > Hi, > > I really like that you open all those bugs. But it makes no sense to add > arches after a "time out". At least not after a such a short one. The > maintainer is responsible for the package, that means it is their > responsibility to decide that a package should go stable.
Might want to include data on "short time out". If said timeout also occured despite a dev being away, that also would be relevant. Personally, having been on the receiving end of it I don't mind it- the timeout approach is good for getting procrastrinating and/or overloaded maintaners to speak up rather than the bug rotting. > In addition > they have to make the package fit to the standards that the arch teams > request. And I can tell from my own experience it is always more than > the average package has. Eh? Tree standards apply, if the ebuild isn't yet to that point, than it should be sorted prior to unstable /anyways/. If an arch has special standards, and they want the pkg stabled, it's on the *arch* to do the legwork if the requirements are daft, else tell the arch to be less retarded. My view at least. I *suspect* the requirements you're complaining about here are more related to source quality/running on alternate arches rather than packaging itself- either way clarification is useful. > So as long as you don't review the packages > yourself, consider a different proceeding than this timeout. > > Please remove all added arches from the packages maintained by all sci* > teams. I have no issues w/ people bypassing me if I'm not doing my job in a timely fashion- with the caveat that anyone doing so has to keep what they kill (you break it, you fix it; if I'm overloaded someone making a mess and dumping it in my lap will result in a fair bit of hell directed their way). ~harring
