From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gentoo-dev+bounces-64613-garchives=archives.gentoo.org@lists.gentoo.org>
Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80])
	by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E310138A1F
	for <garchives@archives.gentoo.org>; 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 <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; 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 <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; 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 <steev@gentoo.org>
To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2014 20:45:59 -0600
In-Reply-To: <CAGfcS_=kdNUPac=9EyoJYpuvUuMA4gfUjqn3xzmsn6rnTzbA4Q@mail.gmail.com>
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>
	 <pan$80e84$b86d03dc$cb8d1a11$c6b95096@cox.net>
	 <CAGfcS_k=aS06b7s2_Y4_TrG6ngDafeW6axWEmb4o_iTCQaSUaQ@mail.gmail.com>
	 <20140126045302.14342.qmail@stuge.se>
	 <CAGfcS_=Ad__rKRMck0kE7GQBwmMz1GJRgdb_0aA=JX6q+b0yhQ@mail.gmail.com>
	 <20140126185644.8251.qmail@stuge.se>
	 <CAGfcS_kkncq5HzxbeMHFzAfgTz23yB4niBV7T8ev8wGn_be0jQ@mail.gmail.com>
	 <1390808491.24681.46.camel@oswin.hackershack.net>
	 <CAGfcS_=kdNUPac=9EyoJYpuvUuMA4gfUjqn3xzmsn6rnTzbA4Q@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-Mailer: Evolution 3.8.5 
Precedence: bulk
List-Post: <mailto:gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gentoo-dev+help@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+unsubscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+subscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail <gentoo-dev.gentoo.org>
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 <steev@gentoo.org> 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
>