From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1OSuE2-0007zP-Rl for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sun, 27 Jun 2010 15:56:55 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id BF81AE0C0B; Sun, 27 Jun 2010 15:56:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-bw0-f53.google.com (mail-bw0-f53.google.com [209.85.214.53]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 67DDFE0B5C for ; Sun, 27 Jun 2010 15:56:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: by bwz6 with SMTP id 6so231442bwz.40 for ; Sun, 27 Jun 2010 08:56:44 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:sender:date:from:to:subject :message-id:references:mime-version:content-type:content-disposition :in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=KAHR83H3MZh3A1dB1PoUgHQ1ArWmCbcQvpl7ZNpZT+E=; b=vofkq54P6hYMy1WuzbdABcl9Bh6RpvvQSRe/suYQYE49a3YCi5GWeKYjBWP19UAagd Oa5LrofmRNYnANqpfbYr3m74yx0hoVPOv3uwNlSsX3i9Xsbpj49dXZVhv+2Sac8oOPaP LuArWSN+NOi/HvOEsz3tgn7Nj6FHJITRGEh48= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=sender:date:from:to:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; b=CpipmhtHLSfPY3CfcjbXjY8pXnmKar8LMHJSUISawApjl7Sx1ytN5VxYMhRIQwF4cy vNSWSYrHhBpofldjm4AGQLnmVvkvWgaH7otCoZlfLJqyGu2lpQXezuUr+vSJxK8U4ILJ t3u34M0vHaesXWeLMPbFFcUw1HFe10P9VYXuc= Received: by 10.204.47.21 with SMTP id l21mr2460271bkf.134.1277654204685; Sun, 27 Jun 2010 08:56:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from Eternity (79.103.24.94.dsl.dyn.forthnet.gr [79.103.24.94]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id u3sm14228552bkz.12.2010.06.27.08.56.42 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Sun, 27 Jun 2010 08:56:44 -0700 (PDT) Sender: Markos Chandras Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2010 18:54:36 +0300 From: Markos Chandras To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Policy for late/slow stabilizations Message-ID: <20100627155436.GA19598@Eternity> References: <20100627150445.GA19456@Eternity> <1277653669.22988.3.camel@TesterBox.tester.ca> 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-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="C7zPtVaVf+AK4Oqc" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1277653669.22988.3.camel@TesterBox.tester.ca> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) X-Archives-Salt: 8c513ba7-d759-4194-8dc0-1486ebb114e2 X-Archives-Hash: aa9a1efab980d9d8575a952e7fc67f1a --C7zPtVaVf+AK4Oqc Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 11:47:49AM -0400, Olivier Cr=EAte wrote: > On Sun, 2010-06-27 at 18:04 +0300, Markos Chandras wrote: > > Moreover, slow arches introduce another problem as well. If a package is > > marked stabled for their arch, but this package is quite old, and they = fail to > > stabilize a new version, we ( as maintainers ) can't drop the very old > > ( and obsolete ) version of this package because we somehow will break > > the stable tree for these arches. How should we act in this case? > > Keep the old version around forever just to say that "hey, they do have > > a stable version for our exotic arch". >=20 > I'd propose waiting a bit longer than 30 days.. Maybe 90 days, and then > just drop the old ebuild. These arches will slowly lose stable keywords > until their stable tree gets to a size that they can manage. And > everyone will be winners. That said, when dropping the old keywords, you > have to be careful to drop the stable keyword on all dependencies too so > as to not drop break the tree for them. > When dropping an old *stable* ebuild, which in most cases this will be the only stable ebuild that these arches will have for this packages, the next world update will be ugly since there will be no *stable * candidates for that package anymore. In this case, stable users will start filling package.keywords leading to ~testing migration. So I am not sure if this is the correct approach to deal with this but I can't think of anything else > --=20 > Olivier Cr=EAte > tester@gentoo.org > Gentoo Developer --=20 Markos Chandras (hwoarang) Gentoo Linux Developer Web: http://hwoarang.silverarrow.org --C7zPtVaVf+AK4Oqc Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.12 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAkwndDwACgkQ9/cejkQaxBB0YQCeMWSVNMZ8l8vel/YbOADkrKbV 28EAnAmXvkXA1ivGGlhyYxIaQTmZqbaa =ZtKR -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --C7zPtVaVf+AK4Oqc--