[gentoo-dev] Ebuild bumping policy wrt KEYWORDS

[gentoo-dev] Ebuild bumping policy wrt KEYWORDS

[Jason Wever]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Is there a written policy anyway for the behavior of carrying KEYWORDS 
over from one version of an ebuild for a given package to another?

I've noticed in my wanderings though the portage tree forest that often 
times keywords have a habit of disappearing without notice between 
versions , and having a policy or guideline *shudder* to help establish 
guidelines for this behavior (if one doesn't already exist).

Thanks,
- -- 
Jason Wever
Gentoo/Sparc Co-Team Lead
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFBK+cudKvgdVioq28RAiBiAJ0evW9k7cLPZdtNOxT2SYOxrU3iiQCeKF25
yJNGu59eHXqRIvpN4AFR6Uk=
=ihAN
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Ebuild bumping policy wrt KEYWORDS

[Jason Wever]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Tue, 24 Aug 2004, Jason Wever wrote:

> Is there a written policy anyway for the behavior of carrying KEYWORDS
> over from one version of an ebuild for a given package to another?

Ciaranm set me straight on this, so no replies necessary :)

Man does my head hurt though,
- -- 
Jason Wever
Gentoo/Sparc Co-Team Lead
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFBLADkdKvgdVioq28RAlkfAJ4rqTHsk59LjT+Z65qGqnIW1MTVegCcCF/T
hG1R4j2Qcd9sVndrXc7hNw0=
=X+Cl
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Ebuild bumping policy wrt KEYWORDS

[Chris Gianelloni]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1451 bytes --]

On Tue, 2004-08-24 at 21:11, Jason Wever wrote:
> Is there a written policy anyway for the behavior of carrying KEYWORDS 
> over from one version of an ebuild for a given package to another?

I wouldn't be able to point you to it, but I can swear I read somewhere
on g.o that it was acceptable to KEYWORD a new version of a package as
~arch if the previous version of that package was arch or ~arch.

> I've noticed in my wanderings though the portage tree forest that often 
> times keywords have a habit of disappearing without notice between 
> versions , and having a policy or guideline *shudder* to help establish 
> guidelines for this behavior (if one doesn't already exist).

At the same time, I've heard that we should never KEYWORD *anything*
which we cannot test for ourselves.  This has been my general way of
doing things.  When I commit a new version of a package, I only KEYWORD
it for the arches I can test for, then I send a test request to the
remaining arches.

Which is the preferred method?

While the first could possibly introduce packages that are broken for a
specific arch, the second also adds to the problem of alternative arches
being behind the base (x86, here) arch many times, and also lends to
packages disappearing as they get older ebuilds cleaned up.

-- 
Chris Gianelloni
Release Engineering - Operations/QA Manager
Games - Developer
Gentoo Linux

Is your power animal a penguin?

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Ebuild bumping policy wrt KEYWORDS

[Michael Kohl]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 692 bytes --]

On Tue, 24 Aug 2004 21:00:50 -0600 (MDT)
Jason Wever <weeve@gentoo.org> wrote:

> On Tue, 24 Aug 2004, Jason Wever wrote:
> 
> > Is there a written policy anyway for the behavior of carrying
> > KEYWORDS over from one version of an ebuild for a given package to
> > another?
> 
> Ciaranm set me straight on this, so no replies necessary :)

Care to summarize what he told you? This would make the answer more
known to the community, plus save several people the same headaches
you're going through right now... ;-)

Regards,

-- 
Michael Kohl <citizen428@gentoo.org>

GnuPG key: http://dev.gentoo.org/~citizen428/citizen428.asc
0x90CA09E3 - 4D21 916E DBCE 72B8 CDC5  BD87 DE2D 91A2 90CA 09E3

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Ebuild bumping policy wrt KEYWORDS

[Jason Wever]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 430 bytes --]

On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 17:30:02 +0200
Michael Kohl <citizen428@gentoo.org> wrote:

> Care to summarize what he told you? This would make the answer more
> known to the community, plus save several people the same headaches
> you're going through right now... ;-)

Basically what I was looking for was found at
http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/devrel/handbook/handbook.xml?part=2&chap=5

Enjoy!
-- 
Jason Wever
Gentoo/Sparc Team Co-Lead

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Ebuild bumping policy wrt KEYWORDS

[Jason Wever]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1043 bytes --]

On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 09:51:02 -0400
Chris Gianelloni <wolf31o2@gentoo.org> wrote:

> At the same time, I've heard that we should never KEYWORD *anything*
> which we cannot test for ourselves.  This has been my general way of
> doing things.  When I commit a new version of a package, I only KEYWORD
> it for the arches I can test for, then I send a test request to the
> remaining arches.
> 
> Which is the preferred method?

It's sort of both.

According to 
http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/devrel/handbook/handbook.xml?part=2&chap=5#doc_chap2,
if an ebuild had an ~arch or arch keyword in the previous version, the
policy is to make it ~arch in the new version. If for some reason the
package maintainer is of the impression the new version would break a
given arch, they may omit the arch from the new version and request the
arch test out the package.

If the keyword didn't exist before and you can't test for it a given arch,
then yeah, don't keyword it lest we let jforman out of his cage again.

-- 
Jason Wever
Gentoo/Sparc Team Co-Lead

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Ebuild bumping policy wrt KEYWORDS

[Donnie Berkholz]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 613 bytes --]

On Wed, 2004-08-25 at 22:22, Jason Wever wrote:
> According to 
> http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/devrel/handbook/handbook.xml?part=2&chap=5#doc_chap2,
> if an ebuild had an ~arch or arch keyword in the previous version, the
> policy is to make it ~arch in the new version. If for some reason the
> package maintainer is of the impression the new version would break a
> given arch, they may omit the arch from the new version and request the
> arch test out the package.

I also would hesitate to auto-~arch fairly critical packages, such as X
or anything in system.
-- 
Donnie Berkholz
Gentoo Linux

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Ebuild bumping policy wrt KEYWORDS

[Jason Wever]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1167 bytes --]

On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 23:49:47 -0500
Donnie Berkholz <spyderous@gentoo.org> wrote:

> I also would hesitate to auto-~arch fairly critical packages, such as X
> or anything in system.

For larger || more troublesome || tool-chain type packages, we've
historically worked with the package maintainers in keywording new
versions to help with this.  In cases like this that is
acceptable/agreeable.  This might be a fine print item for that portion of
the handbook.

Personally, I would rather run into a package breaking in a revbump than
have it be missing keywords and not notified that it was behind. While yes
this stinks from a QA perspective, it also gets the problem addressed and
resolved quicker (usually) than running into it later on down the road. 
It's also a lot easier wrt the overhead the package maintainers, arch
maintainers and infrastructure maintainers have to go through to
accomidate extra emails, bugs, etc if test requests had to be issued each
time a package got rev or version bumped in the portage tree.

Granted that's just my preference, but I've got my flame retardant
underoos on so fire away ;)


-- 
Jason Wever
Gentoo/Sparc Team Co-Lead

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Ebuild bumping policy wrt KEYWORDS

[Donnie Berkholz]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 838 bytes --]

On Thu, 2004-08-26 at 00:20, Jason Wever wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 23:49:47 -0500
> Donnie Berkholz <spyderous@gentoo.org> wrote:
> 
> > I also would hesitate to auto-~arch fairly critical packages, such as X
> > or anything in system.
> 
> For larger || more troublesome || tool-chain type packages, we've
> historically worked with the package maintainers in keywording new
> versions to help with this.  In cases like this that is
> acceptable/agreeable.  This might be a fine print item for that portion of
> the handbook.
> 
> Personally, I would rather run into a package breaking in a revbump than
> have it be missing keywords and not notified that it was behind.

I'm sorry, I took it as a given that the archs would be notified in this
case. I guess I shouldn't have. =)
-- 
Donnie Berkholz
Gentoo Linux

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Ebuild bumping policy wrt KEYWORDS

[Chris Gianelloni]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 949 bytes --]

On Thu, 2004-08-26 at 01:20, Jason Wever wrote:
> Personally, I would rather run into a package breaking in a revbump than
> have it be missing keywords and not notified that it was behind. While yes
> this stinks from a QA perspective, it also gets the problem addressed and
> resolved quicker (usually) than running into it later on down the road. 
> It's also a lot easier wrt the overhead the package maintainers, arch
> maintainers and infrastructure maintainers have to go through to
> accomidate extra emails, bugs, etc if test requests had to be issued each
> time a package got rev or version bumped in the portage tree.

So for Sparc, I should just KEYWORD away (on non-critical packages) and
hope nothing breaks?

(Though I will be testing on my U2 once I get my hard drive in for it.)

-- 
Chris Gianelloni
Release Engineering - Operations/QA Manager
Games - Developer
Gentoo Linux

Is your power animal a penguin?

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Ebuild bumping policy wrt KEYWORDS

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1289 bytes --]

On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 10:16:10 -0400 Chris Gianelloni
<wolf31o2@gentoo.org> wrote:
| So for Sparc, I should just KEYWORD away (on non-critical packages)
| and hope nothing breaks?

No no no no no.

Don't add a ~sparc keyword to a package which previously had no (~)sparc
keywords at all.

When bumping, drop sparc keywords to ~sparc. If it's a really really big
change, you might want to drop the sparc keyword entirely, but if you
do, you *must* file a bug. There are a few exceptions to this rule
(basically toolchain and kernel stuff), but if you work with these
packages you know what they are.

When bumping an ebuild where a new dep is introduced, and that new dep
isn't in ~sparc, drop the sparc keyword and file a bug. Alternatively,
if the new dep is a small easy to test package, prod one of us on irc
and we might be able to get it keyworded straight off.

Don't move things from ~sparc to sparc.

*** ---> DO NOT EVER ADD A ~SPARC KEYWORD TO ANY NEW *PACKAGE* UNLESS
YOU'VE ACTUALLY TESTED IT YOURSELF. <--- *** (Oh, and if you *have*
tested it and you're not on the sparc@ alias, make sure we know what
you're doing...)

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (Sparc, MIPS, Vim, Fluxbox)
Mail            : ciaranm at gentoo.org
Web             : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm


[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Ebuild bumping policy wrt KEYWORDS

[Carsten Lohrke]

On Thursday 26 August 2004 05:17, Jason Wever wrote:
> Basically what I was looking for was found at
> http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/devrel/handbook/handbook.xml?part=2&chap=5

>>Ebuilds should only be stabilized, i.e. placed from "~arch" into "arch" when 
the maintainer, or an architecture maintainer deems the ebuild to be stable.

From a package maintainer perspective, I'm not fine with it. Imho an arch 
should simply not go stable, before the package maintainer marks his arch 
stable. I cannot care for arch maintainers - and their users - if they run 
into problems, e.g. due to dependency changes while I do not consider the 
ebuild stable. If the arch maintainer thinks, he knows a package better than 
me and cannot even ask before doing so - o.k., not my problem. We had the 
discussion a while back...


Carsten

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Ebuild bumping policy wrt KEYWORDS

[Chris Gianelloni]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1041 bytes --]

On Thu, 2004-08-26 at 10:44, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 10:16:10 -0400 Chris Gianelloni
> <wolf31o2@gentoo.org> wrote:
> | So for Sparc, I should just KEYWORD away (on non-critical packages)
> | and hope nothing breaks?
> 
> No no no no no.
> 
> Don't add a ~sparc keyword to a package which previously had no (~)sparc
> keywords at all.

I meant when bumping a package that already had a sparc or ~sparc
KEYWORD.

> Don't move things from ~sparc to sparc.

I wouldn't touch this, but I guess it does need to be said.

=]

> *** ---> DO NOT EVER ADD A ~SPARC KEYWORD TO ANY NEW *PACKAGE* UNLESS
> YOU'VE ACTUALLY TESTED IT YOURSELF. <--- *** (Oh, and if you *have*
> tested it and you're not on the sparc@ alias, make sure we know what
> you're doing...)

I haven't started doing anything yet, but I'll be sure one of you guys
knows before I touch anything.

-- 
Chris Gianelloni
Release Engineering - Operations/QA Manager
Games - Developer
Gentoo Linux

Is your power animal a penguin?

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Ebuild bumping policy wrt KEYWORDS

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1208 bytes --]

On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 16:51:43 +0200 Carsten Lohrke <carlo@gentoo.org>
wrote:
| >>Ebuilds should only be stabilized, i.e. placed from "~arch" into
| >"arch" when 
| the maintainer, or an architecture maintainer deems the ebuild to be
| stable.
| 
| From a package maintainer perspective, I'm not fine with it. Imho an
| arch should simply not go stable, before the package maintainer marks
| his arch stable. I cannot care for arch maintainers - and their users
| - if they run into problems, e.g. due to dependency changes while I do
| not consider the ebuild stable. If the arch maintainer thinks, he
| knows a package better than me and cannot even ask before doing so -
| o.k., not my problem. We had the discussion a while back...

Personally I prefer my original wording:

> Arch teams: when moving from ~arch to arch on an actively maintained
> package where you're going ahead of the maintainer's arch, it's best
> to consult first.  You don't necessarily have to follow the
> maintainer's advice, but at least listen to what they have to say.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (Sparc, MIPS, Vim, Fluxbox)
Mail            : ciaranm at gentoo.org
Web             : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm


[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Ebuild bumping policy wrt KEYWORDS

[Carsten Lohrke]

On Thursday 26 August 2004 17:04, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> Personally I prefer my original wording:
> > Arch teams: when moving from ~arch to arch on an actively maintained
> > package where you're going ahead of the maintainer's arch, it's best
> > to consult first.  You don't necessarily have to follow the
> > maintainer's advice, but at least listen to what they have to say.

The problem is still the same: Other arch maintainers can't know, which arch 
is the package maintainers arch. I would always deny or mask it stable on my  
arch as well, if I had no objections.


Carsten

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Ebuild bumping policy wrt KEYWORDS

[Jason Wever]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Thu, 26 Aug 2004, Chris Gianelloni wrote:

> On Thu, 2004-08-26 at 01:20, Jason Wever wrote:
>> Personally, I would rather run into a package breaking in a revbump than
>> have it be missing keywords and not notified that it was behind. While yes
>> this stinks from a QA perspective, it also gets the problem addressed and
>> resolved quicker (usually) than running into it later on down the road.
>> It's also a lot easier wrt the overhead the package maintainers, arch
>> maintainers and infrastructure maintainers have to go through to
>> accomidate extra emails, bugs, etc if test requests had to be issued each
>> time a package got rev or version bumped in the portage tree.
>
> So for Sparc, I should just KEYWORD away (on non-critical packages) and
> hope nothing breaks?

Sorry, this was meant only for causes where previous revisions of a given 
package had sparc or ~sparc keywords and the package maintainer is 
uncertain of whether to keep them or not going forward.

- -- 
Jason Wever
Gentoo/Sparc Co-Team Lead
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFBLgJPdKvgdVioq28RAkQRAKCkiOgXHAyoScGVhFJbt0FpHclAfwCgmy3b
Zj4qAnPlhHi8MMhjeKAcVBA=
=2Ol2
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Ebuild bumping policy wrt KEYWORDS

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1128 bytes --]

On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 17:30:11 +0200 Carsten Lohrke <carlo@gentoo.org>
wrote:
| On Thursday 26 August 2004 17:04, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| > Personally I prefer my original wording:
| > > Arch teams: when moving from ~arch to arch on an actively
| > > maintained package where you're going ahead of the maintainer's
| > > arch, it's best to consult first.  You don't necessarily have to
| > > follow the maintainer's advice, but at least listen to what they
| > > have to say.
| 
| The problem is still the same: Other arch maintainers can't know,
| which arch is the package maintainers arch. I would always deny or
| mask it stable on my  arch as well, if I had no objections.

*sigh* x86 having broken stable gnome for two weeks and not realising
it (whilst other archs who went ahead of x86 had it working) just goes
to show that this is not always the case.

Oh, and you're assuming that all your packages are entirely arch
neutral. This is also not always the case.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (Sparc, MIPS, Vim, Fluxbox)
Mail            : ciaranm at gentoo.org
Web             : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm


[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Ebuild bumping policy wrt KEYWORDS

[Travis Tilley]

Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 17:30:11 +0200 Carsten Lohrke <carlo@gentoo.org>
> wrote:
> | On Thursday 26 August 2004 17:04, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> | > Personally I prefer my original wording:
> | > > Arch teams: when moving from ~arch to arch on an actively
> | > > maintained package where you're going ahead of the maintainer's
> | > > arch, it's best to consult first.  You don't necessarily have to
> | > > follow the maintainer's advice, but at least listen to what they
> | > > have to say.
> | 
> | The problem is still the same: Other arch maintainers can't know,
> | which arch is the package maintainers arch. I would always deny or
> | mask it stable on my  arch as well, if I had no objections.
> 
> *sigh* x86 having broken stable gnome for two weeks and not realising
> it (whilst other archs who went ahead of x86 had it working) just goes
> to show that this is not always the case.

i refrained from doing the i-told-you-so when that happened, but i just 
cant help it now. i told you so! (though it's still in really really 
really bad taste)
i just found it ironic that it was someone from the gnome team who was 
arguing for never marking packages stable last the maintainer's arch, 
and gnome was broken on it's maintainer's arch for so long. for amd64, 
nobody complained about epiphany being broken.

...and this example is one of the mostly arch generic ones where it 
would usually not make sense to go too far ahead of the maintainer on a 
regular basis.


Travis Tilley <lv@gentoo.org>

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Ebuild bumping policy wrt KEYWORDS

[Carsten Lohrke]

On Thursday 26 August 2004 17:33, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 17:30:11 +0200 Carsten Lohrke <carlo@gentoo.org>
> *sigh* x86 having broken stable gnome for two weeks and not realising
> it (whilst other archs who went ahead of x86 had it working) just goes
> to show that this is not always the case.
>
> Oh, and you're assuming that all your packages are entirely arch
> neutral. This is also not always the case.

Oh, please don't do the arch ride. It's all about communication and tools to 
optimize it. We had the idea to have a stable flag or to precede the 
package_maintainer_arch_keyword (in short: pmac ;) by a sign, to let single 
archs go ahead without loosing the necessary information for other archs, but 
the discussion fell asleep. 

If you know about a problem with gnome+x86, then put them on fire. Same for 
kde of course, but I yell for helping hands in advance. And please tell my: 
How and why should a package maintainer should keep watch over the arch 
herds!? Everything else will cause broken stable ebuilds every now and then.


Carsten


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Ebuild bumping policy wrt KEYWORDS

[foser]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1949 bytes --]

On Thu, 2004-08-26 at 12:11 -0400, Travis Tilley wrote:
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > *sigh* x86 having broken stable gnome for two weeks and not realising
> > it (whilst other archs who went ahead of x86 had it working) just goes
> > to show that this is not always the case.
> 
> i refrained from doing the i-told-you-so when that happened, but i just 
> cant help it now. i told you so! (though it's still in really really 
> really bad taste)

omg, this is at least the third time this gets chewed out, you guys are
really, really trying hard to make a point out of something that wasn't
the gnome teams fault to begin with.

If you really are clinging on to examples to make a point I could
probably fish more than 1 (!) up where both of your arches were running
with known bugged versions because of your liberal views on marking
stable.

> i just found it ironic that it was someone from the gnome team who was 
> arguing for never marking packages stable last the maintainer's arch, 
> and gnome was broken on it's maintainer's arch for so long. for amd64, 
> nobody complained about epiphany being broken.

I find it ironic that you who are so keen on pointing out that something
was broken in x86 gnome and obviously knew about it all this time,
failed to inform us during that period. So actually you put yourself in
a position here where you have as much blame -or even more- as the
mozilla team, who failed to communicate the change in the first place.
Where was your mail to the gnome herd lv or ciaranm ?

I'd appreciate it if you guys stopped distorting the facts to
consolidate your own QA-hurting policy of moving beyond the maintainers
arch. It's not serving the community you are pretending to be part of in
any way and I had hoped you'd be more mature than this. Don't play it on
examples that fit your views, the sheer lack of it actually makes your
case even weaker than it was.

- foser

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Ebuild bumping policy wrt KEYWORDS

[foser]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1470 bytes --]

On Thu, 2004-08-26 at 16:04 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 16:51:43 +0200 Carsten Lohrke <carlo@gentoo.org>
> wrote:
> | From a package maintainer perspective, I'm not fine with it. Imho an
> | arch should simply not go stable, before the package maintainer marks
> | his arch stable. I cannot care for arch maintainers - and their users
> | - if they run into problems, e.g. due to dependency changes while I do
> | not consider the ebuild stable. If the arch maintainer thinks, he
> | knows a package better than me and cannot even ask before doing so -
> | o.k., not my problem. We had the discussion a while back...
> 
> Personally I prefer my original wording:
> 
> > Arch teams: when moving from ~arch to arch on an actively maintained
> > package where you're going ahead of the maintainer's arch, it's best
> > to consult first.  You don't necessarily have to follow the
> > maintainer's advice, but at least listen to what they have to say.

It's basically the same thing as carlo said, only covered in a nice
sauce of political correctness. It's pretty simple, without a real good
reason an arch should never go beyond the maintainers arch & never
without checking back with the maintaining herd even.

So, your 'original wording' is no policy at all, it's just trying to
give a wrong sense of QA which is completely lacking from it & is just
trying to maintain the status-quo you enjoy at this point.

- foser

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Ebuild bumping policy wrt KEYWORDS

[Travis Tilley]

foser wrote:
> If you really are clinging on to examples to make a point I could
> probably fish more than 1 (!) up where both of your arches were running
> with known bugged versions because of your liberal views on marking
> stable.

if by bugged you mean versions that work?

> I find it ironic that you who are so keen on pointing out that something
> was broken in x86 gnome and obviously knew about it all this time,
> failed to inform us during that period.

there was an open bug report. would you have liked us to file duplicates?

> I'd appreciate it if you guys stopped distorting the facts to
> consolidate your own QA-hurting policy of moving beyond the maintainers

who are you to talk about QA hurting? just take a look at:
http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=24439

you even have the portage devs screaming at you there.

> arch. It's not serving the community you are pretending to be part of in
> any way and I had hoped you'd be more mature than this. Don't play it on
> examples that fit your views, the sheer lack of it actually makes your
> case even weaker than it was.
> 
> - foser

well i'm pretty sure i shouldnt be taking QA advice from the gnome team. 
that and the bug i mention is quite an interesting read. i'd say my case 
for not paying attention to a single word you say would indeed be quite 
strong.


Travis Tilley <lv@gentoo.org>

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Ebuild bumping policy wrt KEYWORDS

[foser]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2585 bytes --]

On Tue, 2004-08-31 at 22:09 -0400, Travis Tilley wrote:
> if by bugged you mean versions that work?

I think you mean 'versions that run with known bugs' ? Still bugged I'm
afraid.

> > I find it ironic that you who are so keen on pointing out that something
> > was broken in x86 gnome and obviously knew about it all this time,
> > failed to inform us during that period.
> 
> there was an open bug report. would you have liked us to file duplicates?

It wasn't open all the time & no i was talking about 'mailing' or maybe
poking on IRC. Note that I myself was unavailable during this period.

Besides the bug in question got fixed in a day, so before that point
there's still an unexplained gap ? And you obviously knew about it,
because you already had marked it stable...

> > I'd appreciate it if you guys stopped distorting the facts to
> > consolidate your own QA-hurting policy of moving beyond the maintainers
> 
> who are you to talk about QA hurting? just take a look at:
> http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=24439
> 
> you even have the portage devs screaming at you there.

A nice misinterpretation, once again you try to play it on the person &
on a totally unrelated example, while I even told you thats sort of a
weak way to go about arguing your case (you don't have much else i
guess). Maybe if you read it objectively, you would would be able to
give a fair judgement, but i guess thats way beyond you.

Basically what you are saying here comes down to this : "Judge, they
steal too, so I should be allowed to steal as well.." I don't think that
holds up anywhere.

Anyway, were open to changes there, unlike some devs here.

> well i'm pretty sure i shouldnt be taking QA advice from the gnome team. 
> that and the bug i mention is quite an interesting read. i'd say my case 
> for not paying attention to a single word you say would indeed be quite 
> strong.

Again on the person, you really don't have any objective, sound
arguments do you ?

Well I'd say that it doesn't really matter, because in the end it is not
your decision and I know most devs are more objective than you in this
matter. I actually do not think I can convince you of anything because
you are so stuck up in your own way of thinking. Thats exactly what this
is about, because if you would be reasonable then this wouldn't be an
issue in the first place. You are afraid of losing some of the freedom
you enjoy now and won't trade it for better QA, it's very human to hang
on to every scrap of imagined power you got.

- foser

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Ebuild bumping policy wrt KEYWORDS

[Robert Moss]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 763 bytes --]

foser wrote:
> On Tue, 2004-08-31 at 22:09 -0400, Travis Tilley wrote:
> 
>>if by bugged you mean versions that work?
> 
> 
> I think you mean 'versions that run with known bugs' ? Still bugged I'm
> afraid.

I think he means "the least buggy version on amd64." Doing a stable bump 
to solve a huge bug whilst introducing a number of smaller ones is, I 
think, acceptable, even if you're playing with the stable branch. This 
is even detailed (albeit only briefly and suggestively rather than 
explicitly) in the developer guidelines. Sometimes, QA has to slip by 
the wayside in order to ensure that something isn't massively broken. 
"Stable" does not mean "wait until all known bugs are solved" - it means 
"least broken." Everything is broken to some extent.

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 264 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Ebuild bumping policy wrt KEYWORDS

[Carsten Lohrke]

On Wednesday 01 September 2004 18:30, Robert Moss wrote:
> Everything is broken to some extent.

The point is, that you can hardly measure, if a new version is less broken 
than an older one, if you do not actively maintain a package. You can't know 
which patches a package maintainer wants to apply, before marking an ebuild 
stable. Exchanging a broken version with a slightly less broken is acceptable 
for unstable stuff, not for stable ebuilds. You may not agree, but then you 
have no sense for quality.


Carsten

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Ebuild bumping policy wrt KEYWORDS

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 916 bytes --]

On Thu, 2 Sep 2004 01:15:47 +0200 Carsten Lohrke <carlo@gentoo.org>
wrote:
| On Wednesday 01 September 2004 18:30, Robert Moss wrote:
| > Everything is broken to some extent.
| 
| The point is, that you can hardly measure, if a new version is less
| broken than an older one, if you do not actively maintain a package.
| You can't know which patches a package maintainer wants to apply,
| before marking an ebuild stable. Exchanging a broken version with a
| slightly less broken is acceptable for unstable stuff, not for stable
| ebuilds. You may not agree, but then you have no sense for quality.

Which is better? Having 'emerge gnome' fail entirely, or having 'emerge
gnome' provide a working gnome which might have a small number of minor
unfixed bugs?

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (Sparc, MIPS, Vim, Fluxbox)
Mail            : ciaranm at gentoo.org
Web             : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm


[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Ebuild bumping policy wrt KEYWORDS

[Carsten Lohrke]

On Thursday 02 September 2004 01:20, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> Which is better? Having 'emerge gnome' fail entirely, or having 'emerge
> gnome' provide a working gnome which might have a small number of minor
> unfixed bugs?

Ciaran "the Gnome basher" again. ;) If `emerge gnome` fails entirely, why was 
it ever marked stable on the specific arch? I don't want to speak about the 
Gnome "cannot fix imlib stuff" herd, since there is enough KDE "cannot fix a 
lot of things - at best yesterday" herd stuff.

To answer your question: Yes, it's better to wait a bit longer - and no, I 
don't speak about minor stuff. I just say, arch maintainers can't know, if 
there's a problem maybe, even though the ebuild compiled flawlessly for the 
moment.


Carsten

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list