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 1PmY4G-0004Lj-L9 for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Mon, 07 Feb 2011 20:52:16 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 5146F1C007; Mon, 7 Feb 2011 20:52:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-ew0-f53.google.com (mail-ew0-f53.google.com [209.85.215.53]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E20F8E0B1D for ; Mon, 7 Feb 2011 20:51:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: by ewy6 with SMTP id 6so3169055ewy.40 for ; Mon, 07 Feb 2011 12:51:26 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:sender:date:from:to:subject:message-id :references:mime-version:content-type:content-disposition :in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=fxR7Q/COT4Y81B1dHGiHrijkPjOOHx645T2LpRYmu3Y=; b=sXSG7vA/mnCQhTk+cKryNKMpwy5ae35z+Wniai96MQNRxsR14v5sLKf7RzDZpT+CHR jL3OmFzIVn8GAAjreKXgU4/MGun0OeXJxMS5IaDXA0aOMcvG8l2mzq6ZAmY3vioPZRL0 Dtdkkz0AIAjCoZBRUaNyWB+mKg1byfed92pxo= 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=P//WTct8ZdEAKGAP8P9MmpqE4Sgkpq0XxY0BDEudFMssCDw+SW6i9Eqwaamn8K8vlQ DAfimeSrfwth82s5exdQr6kYyXRJptpzBgJ9IMcYUq0U9dRdmbZzbdZKAlvjp2QDKaCU sW82lDDMfTA8RiqcUGmd6sn7h92c5O8TKiXz8= Received: by 10.216.187.71 with SMTP id x49mr15981153wem.111.1297111885864; Mon, 07 Feb 2011 12:51:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from bookie ([78.40.152.129]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id r6sm2408387weq.44.2011.02.07.12.51.23 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Mon, 07 Feb 2011 12:51:24 -0800 (PST) Sender: Markos Chandras Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2011 21:50:59 +0100 From: Markos Chandras To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] avoiding urgent stabilizations Message-ID: <20110207205059.GA10939@bookie> References: <4D501BA4.6040802@gentoo.org> <4D502114.2060006@gentoo.org> <1297100159.15824.21.camel@localhost.localdomain> <201102071845.15942.dilfridge@gentoo.org> 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-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="5mCyUwZo2JvN/JJP" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <201102071845.15942.dilfridge@gentoo.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-Archives-Salt: X-Archives-Hash: d69bce402c7d5b3b4a2ff54c82fa0b40 --5mCyUwZo2JvN/JJP Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon, Feb 07, 2011 at 06:45:10PM +0100, Andreas K. Huettel wrote: >=20 > We've been discussing this @FOSDEM too. My suggestion was that any bug th= at=20 > visibly hurts stable users should always be considered at least MAJOR in= =20 > bugzilla.=20 >=20 > To expand on this a bit more > * a stable update that makes the computer nonfunctional is definitely BLO= CKER=20 > (and should be reverted in CVS immediately when it becomes known, at late= st=20 > when it is understood, by anyone who is around at the time and can do so) > * a non-functional stable package in the system set should be CRITICAL. >=20 > Just my 2ct, but it is really important not to hurt stable users. This is= how=20 > we lose most people. > The rolling way we stabilize the packages makes the stable tree pretty much fragile to breakages and stuff. This is because you cannot predict what is going to happen to the rest of the tree if you stabilize a newer package. It may have unpredictable consequences to the rest of the packages. My suggestion, as I said to fosdem, is to freeze, or take a snapshot if you like, of the current tree, stabilize what you need to stabilize, test the whole tree ( at least compile wise ) for a couple of weeks and then replace the existing stable tree. Of course this requires automated script testing, hardware facilities etc etc that we don't have so claiming that stable tree is "stable" is quite wrong. Regards, --=20 Markos Chandras / Gentoo Linux Developer / Key ID: B4AFF2C2 --5mCyUwZo2JvN/JJP Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (GNU/Linux) iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJNUFszAAoJEPqDWhW0r/LCurIP/1yBhwveUOFMtgGaXonZnIZG viicLkuFrXm50ORMdHC/wKdX9Gzf5NJ2+b9K+qht5tWKjppk8s7wzOTiofZUJLam YFSkjqAW/88+HFiKBLxl5VBdy0Iy85h50QMtaEtEW/mBtyNdf1jEw/dtPA3ZT7oV yZFm8Y3UmvDqoZ2GoeD/2WbuQ9gjiG0tN9edrKxdPpYDdirOBtz/1fqB7IznfYe3 6qhwbFxwETXfohmj8Tkj7q2wbQfPh90kcLIHpysN3Rc6/aIyCFePHC5Eb8mUxr5e lcVc756/LV9t35tFT4r7Z7S8QD1dnuLCN4ppsVskyyB4iHzUZjc90NmGWzffEAqX PyIUy8bCjJzJOGx2uFwXeiVvF7gUenGms9IMbrjVSDt+86VX3EmkHzYuGwZOZM4d VzW//P5S1Yque87vCWarqo47/vVk4VNHajrIR4IJa2m+dz9AwKTS8tdU8XVn9Rbk SFpJLAU8cRKEldiXItLepGI8eyfIw6C4siwk904RLw+yiiDY8Q8qJ6Og11eWTQkB WTQYqzMkWcEhSCCnviU2x/Yn1Rtk1+HJriOANBjNRMe9vhdgnRXU9TFfzDxz+CBY 5faTWzA7bgYgORUDbwcR0namANEJf6OjVu35742hOHGXwyzY+Ecv25zY6n5iaZTn pVyoN2wtNUv7nqyh1o4U =i65h -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --5mCyUwZo2JvN/JJP--