Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: On dropping sparc@ from CC on bugs

2017-09-13 Thread Yury German
OK so let me repeat the comments that were made on @dev (and expand a bit further) and close the issue. 1. Maintainers are free to cc the non-stable and experimental arches as part of their call for stabilization. It is up to the maintainer of the package to decide. 2. This is providing that

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Reinstating old-school GLEPs masterplan

2017-09-13 Thread Michał Górny
W dniu pon, 11.09.2017 o godzinie 19∶08 +0200, użytkownik Michał Górny napisał: > The masterplan > == > > The plan on introducing the changes follows: > > 1. Convert the old GLEP repository from CVS to git (done [3]), > > 2. Prepare www.g.o to render GLEPs (done [4]), > > 3. Convert

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: On dropping sparc@ from CC on bugs

2017-09-13 Thread Sergei Trofimovich
On Wed, 13 Sep 2017 09:00:06 +0200 Ulrich Mueller wrote: > > On Tue, 12 Sep 2017, Matt Turner wrote: > > > I suggested that when security bugs are complete, that if there are > > exp architectures still Cc'd, that security simply reassign to the > > maintainer and let the bug continue as a

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: On dropping sparc@ from CC on bugs

2017-09-13 Thread Ulrich Mueller
> On Tue, 12 Sep 2017, Matt Turner wrote: > I suggested that when security bugs are complete, that if there are > exp architectures still Cc'd, that security simply reassign to the > maintainer and let the bug continue as a regular stabilization bug. > Unfortunately Aaron says that this is fa