From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 74843138247 for ; Tue, 14 Jan 2014 21:37:54 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 95608E0A97; Tue, 14 Jan 2014 21:37:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-oa0-f51.google.com (mail-oa0-f51.google.com [209.85.219.51]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9544CE0A93 for ; Tue, 14 Jan 2014 21:37:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-oa0-f51.google.com with SMTP id m1so255017oag.10 for ; Tue, 14 Jan 2014 13:37:18 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=sender:date:from:to:subject:message-id:mail-followup-to :mime-version:content-type:content-disposition:user-agent; bh=T9WDdlnMWAYljG667Spsjo0G+ZKjbsXinDFkwp8uIow=; b=EaWCGbHsOXpW1CM5OytjAYi7V1MJcxHlcDt8MOviFaX/e+ixHf9CRjGaFJxwvTjoSc rjFpHRq0TP0X0T4fCgbkALWLiQLwiFw5MBdevhP5CqPezG9j0pU8Zh7SAkqfEEYdm9lw By2eM91y83fffKWKDATyx7sK4VCLOoxauE8E22NdDQYqhNLt6YHnudARrjX9OafNTkhE ULUZZKP2VO4iN9yCOvEKgFfAoiWRUuGoxQPgifVnMGJuTmo2AunI1zpzplIsly8x7aHg zRacdcmwyHVAjkiK2aqQPWZapxeQAHPD5qSKkdtVUoq69b4014A7z48ii/8o8ctnvWnc 9lQA== X-Received: by 10.182.255.137 with SMTP id aq9mr2708359obd.80.1389735438856; Tue, 14 Jan 2014 13:37:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from laptop (cpe-76-187-91-128.tx.res.rr.com. [76.187.91.128]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id m7sm1978835obo.7.2014.01.14.13.37.15 for (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 14 Jan 2014 13:37:17 -0800 (PST) Sender: William Hubbs Received: by laptop (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Tue, 14 Jan 2014 15:37:19 -0600 Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2014 15:37:19 -0600 From: William Hubbs To: gentoo development Subject: [gentoo-dev] rfc: revisiting our stabilization policy Message-ID: <20140114213719.GA2684@laptop.home> Mail-Followup-To: gentoo development 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="oyUTqETQ0mS9luUI" Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-Archives-Salt: 3e8d9527-e2d2-430a-8845-bde340ac27bc X-Archives-Hash: 4d803e54cfabb9756f9b7b64ef44c2c2 --oyUTqETQ0mS9luUI Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline All, It is becoming more and more obvious that we do not have enough manpower on the arch teams, even some of the ones we consider major arch's, to keep up with stabilization requests. For example, there is this bug [1], which is blocking the stabilization of several important packages. I spoke to one of the team members on one of the affected arch teams on this bug a couple of weeks ago, and was told just that stabilization takes time. I pointed out that this was affecting important packages and I felt that the arch teams should step up their efforts when it comes to important packages. The arch team member disagreed unless the issue is a security bug. The council decision below [2] has made it possible to move on for some arch's by removing old stable versions of packages 90 days after the stable request is filed and the arch teams are added if there has been no action by the specific arch teams listed in the decision, and those arch teams are the only ones on the bug. I think we need a global policy that either helps keep the stable tree up to date or reverts an architecture to ~ over time if the arch team can't keep up. Keeping old software in the stable tree, I think we can agree, isn't good because newer software, besides having new features, will have bug fixes. Also, I think we can agree that allowing maintainers to stabilize new software on architectures they do not have access to wouldn't be good. I want comments wrt two ideas: 1. I think maintainers should be able to stabilize their packages on arch's they have access to. I think this is allowed by some arch teams, but I think it would be good to formalize it. 2. I would like to see the policy below applied to all arch's [2]. Thoughts? William [1] http://bugs.gentoo.org/487332 [2] http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/meeting-logs/20130917-summary.txt --oyUTqETQ0mS9luUI Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAlLVrg8ACgkQblQW9DDEZTiBegCbBbdkBmr7oYka22+WA3i35igl YBsAoIC+gv5DailB9HeuLsBX5KXiM0kj =xmKy -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --oyUTqETQ0mS9luUI--