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 3E310138A1F for ; Tue, 28 Jan 2014 02:46:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id C55B8E0C5D; Tue, 28 Jan 2014 02:46:04 +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 C7CA7E0C36 for ; Tue, 28 Jan 2014 02:46:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.11.20] (cpe-72-177-217-176.satx.res.rr.com [72.177.217.176]) (using SSLv3 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: steev) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A654033F6F4 for ; Tue, 28 Jan 2014 02:46:02 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <1390877159.24681.63.camel@oswin.hackershack.net> Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: rfc: revisiting our stabilization policy From: Steev Klimaszewski To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2014 20:45:59 -0600 In-Reply-To: References: <20140119143157.72fc0e91@kruskal.home.chead.ca> <20140120014713.2cafc257@TOMWIJ-GENTOO> <20140123181242.GA17827@rathaus.eclipse.co.uk> <20140123201333.71e52bfc@TOMWIJ-GENTOO> <20140124104605.GA19957@rathaus.eclipse.co.uk> <20140124192641.5677cc51@TOMWIJ-GENTOO> <20140126045302.14342.qmail@stuge.se> <20140126185644.8251.qmail@stuge.se> <1390808491.24681.46.camel@oswin.hackershack.net> 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: 0c454a38-7a02-42d8-a94d-3ef28d27c96a X-Archives-Hash: 9dbb9132725313eab5065a64f64dda98 On Mon, 2014-01-27 at 09:52 -0500, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 2:41 AM, Steev Klimaszewski wrote: > > It's not necessarily the STABLEREQs stopping, some of the issues are (at > > least on some arches!) that some of the unstable software doesn't quite > > work properly anymore, and we are failing at communicating. And in > > those cases, we on the arch teams should definitely be pointing this > > out, and filing bugs so that the issues can be sorted. > > Well, if the package or some version of it doesn't work at all, you > can always mask it on the arch or drop keywords. The arch team > doesn't need permission to do this stuff - the keywords and profiles > really "belong" to the arch team, and we just allow maintainers to do > their best job with them to make the job of the arch team easier. > Right, but, afaik, an "unstable" ebuild can go away at any point in time, and then we'd be back in this same place - newer ebuilds are around, older working ones are gone... > Obviously if you actually want the problem fixed that requires > bugs/etc. But you don't need a bug to drop a keyword and at least > make it clear that the package doesn't work. > Right, and this goes as a point towards splitting out the arm keywords, and maybe I'll bring it up at the next ARM team meeting... I don't think it would get much traction, but I suppose it wouldn't hurt to at least throw it out there and see what sticks. > Rich >