Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: About reducing or even removing stable tree for some arches

[Pacho Ramos <pacho@gentoo.org>]

El mié, 18-02-2015 a las 03:11 +0000, Duncan escribió:
> Pacho Ramos posted on Mon, 16 Feb 2015 14:34:50 +0100 as excerpted:
> 
> > The current policy of maintainers dropping keywords after 90 days is
> > simply not applied because it leads up to that maintainer needing to
> > kill himself that keyword and ALL the reverse deps keywords and, then,
> > all that effort should probably be replaced by making the opposite, I
> > mean, reducing the stable tree of that arches to a minimum and moving
> > all the other packages to testing. The main advantage of this is that it
> > needs maybe more effort in one round but it solves the problem for the
> > future. On the other hand trying to kill keywords of a package *and all
> > its reverse deps* requires a lot of work every time the problem appears.
> 
> Perhaps my non-dev status prevents me from understanding the difficulty 
> here, but...  I really don't see the problem.

Maybe that explains it, I have personally suffered it when we needed to
dekeyword most gnome stuff on all arches but amd64/x86 and even months
later we were still needing to remember to either keep moving to testing
other packages or finally postponing the move to testing for some and
try to stabilize some again (as the chain of reverse dep kept growing
forever).

I don't want to have to repeat that for every package that is not
attended in 90 days, and seeing that the arch teams that are unable to
stabilize/keyword things are, consequently, also unable to make this
huge work, the 90 days policy isn't going to start working any time soon
(it has never worked indeed as nobody wants to do the manual job of
checking all the reverse deps, move that deps to testing, recheck for
the reverse deps of those, and repeat and repeat).