From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 714DD138247 for ; Wed, 15 Jan 2014 08:19:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 0B6E1E0ADE; Wed, 15 Jan 2014 08:19:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 20F9CE0AAA for ; Wed, 15 Jan 2014 08:19:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.178.2] (graaff.xs4all.nl [83.163.136.193]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: graaff) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 975B833F1DA for ; Wed, 15 Jan 2014 08:18:58 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <1389773935.16656.3.camel@localhost> Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: revisiting our stabilization policy From: Hans de Graaff To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2014 09:18:55 +0100 In-Reply-To: <20140115044948.GA4345@laptop.home> References: <20140114213719.GA2684@laptop.home> <20140115044948.GA4345@laptop.home> Organization: Gentoo Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.8.5 Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 4fd276f1-bf84-46ef-bbb2-b83c68d6d1e9 X-Archives-Hash: d7b36f7cc3e45135e8d5a9988b5e0671 On Tue, 2014-01-14 at 22:49 -0600, William Hubbs wrote: > > Also, there is a substantial number of packages which contain only python > > code (or perl, ruby), or only LaTeX classes, or only documentation. It > > makes no sense to test them on each arch separately. I think maintainers > > should be allowed to stabilize such packages (with no compiled code) on > > all arches. > > There is a reason we don't do this, back in Gentoo history somewhere, but I > don't remember what it was. > > If someone can tell us why this isn't allowed I am all ears. Otherwise, > I could agree on this point as well. Speaking for ruby I have seen various arch-related bugs in pure ruby code. It doesn't happen a lot (maybe 1% of stable requests) but it is also not predictable. I also like the second set of eyes verifying what we've done as part of marking a package stable, so I probably would still file bugs rather than marking stuff stable myself. Hans