From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F395D139694 for ; Wed, 26 Jul 2017 05:49:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 61071E0D20; Wed, 26 Jul 2017 05:49:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (woodpecker.gentoo.org [IPv6:2001:470:ea4a:1:5054:ff:fec7:86e4]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 07AEFE0BCF for ; Wed, 26 Jul 2017 05:49:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [IPv6:2001:980:4ed9:1:beae:c5ff:fe48:18dc] (unknown [IPv6:2001:980:4ed9:1:beae:c5ff:fe48:18dc]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: graaff) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8E03834180C for ; Wed, 26 Jul 2017 05:49:46 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <1501048182.9067.2.camel@gentoo.org> Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] Future of gentoo's stable and unstable trees: what are your thoughts? From: Hans de Graaff To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2017 07:49:42 +0200 In-Reply-To: <2277691.IQrrNmuQfn@wanheda> References: <20170724222223.6d359e47@sf> <2277691.IQrrNmuQfn@wanheda> Organization: Gentoo Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-KWxM4CSoWNCZBD1OU5aZ" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.22.6 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 X-Archives-Salt: 418ebc75-d861-4e09-be18-2837460e0537 X-Archives-Hash: f7637fa90ae0a3b837a6a05c081cd027 --=-KWxM4CSoWNCZBD1OU5aZ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, 2017-07-25 at 11:03 +0200, Agostino Sarubbo wrote: >=20 > 1) Don't file keywordreq, since noone work on them. File directly > stablereq. This does not make sense to me. If we want to go this route we should probably state a policy instead that new dependencies for already keyworded packages automatically get those keywords as well, even if untested. For packages with stable keywords this would provide a chance to find issues before the package is marked stable. For KEYWORDREQ bugs we could also enlist our users. As a maintainer of dev-ruby packages I'd be happy to add any keywords based on a "emerge --info" and "build.log with FEATURES=3Dtest" combo added to a KEYWORDREQ bug. Putting out a call for action and an easy way for users to scan open KEYWORDREQ bugs for their arch might put a good dent in these. Hans --=-KWxM4CSoWNCZBD1OU5aZ Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iHUEABEIAB0WIQSx3yP+V82AqODatGmIg/pWowio1wUCWXgtdgAKCRCIg/pWowio 1zD9AP4/Ff9Lzi2LtpjCpMYO22p85UH2Qy97/ecwqRXxu2WFmAEAjgF9TGc5kBWl aEU2LW9wRZr4bVyOox8gHGJlBYOBejw= =h6qW -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-KWxM4CSoWNCZBD1OU5aZ--