Re: Assigning keyword/stable bugs to arch teams (WAS: [gentoo-dev] dropping redundant stable keywords)

[Pacho Ramos <pacho@gentoo.org>]

El sáb, 15-02-2014 a las 14:30 +0100, Jeroen Roovers escribió:
[...]
> The only reasonable course of action is to start dropping stable
> keywords for $ARCH, after a reasonable timeout. It gets tricky if this
> involves removing many keywords on dependencies, but if that's what you
> have to do to keep cat/pkg (and eclasses and profiles) in shape, then
> by all means _help_ _out_ $ARCH by doing it for them. If that means
> removing stable/unstable support for an entire DM or scripting
> framework, then so be it.

I agree with this... but, if I don't misremember, there are others that
don't want to do this :/ From the big Gnome 3.8 bug, I have noticed that
we can only handle easily amd64 and x86. Probably arm in the future (at
least Steev if putting lots of effort to trying to test it at runtime on
his ARM devices... but it looks to be pretty hard). With ia64 I was able
to find an arch tester that is helping really a lot, but for the rest of
arches... (ppc, ppc64, alpha, sparc), I have been unable to even find
arch testers that could help.

Personally, I think that, before starting to discuss what to do with
"uncommon" arches we would need to decide how to test things on this
arches:
- Compile test only -> if we agree on this, probably the current
situation can be kept a bit more
- Runtime test required -> this will for sure need to start to dropping
lots of packages to "testing only".

I am not strongly in favor of any of them but I think we need to agree
on what to do. Current situation is like a ugly mix: bugs are piled for
a long long time until some people goes ahead and does the compile test
only. And I think they do what probably is the current only way to do
until we decide what kind of testing we want for this more "exotic"
arches.