Re: [gentoo-dev] mass stabilization and non-x86-non-amd64 arches

[Pacho Ramos <pacho@gentoo.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1462 bytes --]

El sáb, 17-12-2011 a las 16:22 +0100, "Paweł Hajdan, Jr." escribió:
> For several mass-filed stabilization bugs I got comments why I didn't cc
> arches like ppc.
> 
> One problem is that I cc x86 and amd64 via "edit many bugs at once"
> Bugzilla feature, and when filing bugs the script checks that it's
> repoman-possible to stabilize given package on x86 and amd64.
> 
> Not all packages are even keyworded ~ppc, and I guess there are packages
> that can be stabilized on x86 and amd64, but not ppc because of ~ppc
> dependencies.
> 
> All of that is of course solvable with a smarter script, however I'm
> really worried about the additional load on the "rare arches". I
> frequently notice they drop stable keywords when asked for a
> stabilization of some rare package (and I'm fine with that), and they
> may be annoyed by stabilization requests for minor and revision bumps
> (which are fine at least for x86, because of the batch-stabilization
> workflow; of course other arches are welcome to adopt it too).
> 
> What do you think? Should I make my scripts smarter, or is it fine to
> just cc x86 and amd64? Is anyone from non-x86-non-amd64 arch teams
> annoyed by the queue of stabilization bugs?
> 

I am not in ppc* teams but, from my point of view, looks like they are
understaffed and I doubt they could handle so many requests. For mass
stabilization purposes I would keep the script for amd64/x86 only for
now :-/

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]