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 59012138247 for ; Wed, 15 Jan 2014 15:30:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 388F1E0B62; Wed, 15 Jan 2014 15:30:37 +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 49C81E0B57 for ; Wed, 15 Jan 2014 15:30:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-oa0-f51.google.com with SMTP id h16so860196oag.10 for ; Wed, 15 Jan 2014 07:30:35 -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:references :mime-version:content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to :user-agent; bh=IY3T51poLAT961K6Ae4w5Z4VpuI81gm6eEq9j5/IkjM=; b=KmmvtuhFHDzggmmKiKcHLZLXAma7j0hjb+UCIukNo6Y5b+JRQedkQWAxPjJa///3O3 DxGwJjKe8wVbPbdkfoHqgLqrxsvNshlimIBylz4GiE6CJOmt/6WrEihuW+sd149GJ50x z5wXpBhXCv/x4EcJ2GGOi7y++zC7PENYbvSSqrG/i9ddgiB3bOcj/tSWQnEhv1sNkQif eujVIYqeNX6LdfgAnxR0mFFNNwtniRrNtvttktNutwYPeO2sqeJig9dqUBrR7TqepG6A 0JPZ7eacAHlCnCvqZWzrD6A0SMhnFFGOPFuYIUSlFju0VdrcBvVBtdZiuodTv3foxWOG E/Tg== X-Received: by 10.60.47.116 with SMTP id c20mr2259206oen.60.1389799835545; Wed, 15 Jan 2014 07:30:35 -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 g4sm4772578obe.5.2014.01.15.07.30.32 for (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 15 Jan 2014 07:30:34 -0800 (PST) Sender: William Hubbs Received: by laptop (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Wed, 15 Jan 2014 09:30:36 -0600 Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2014 09:30:36 -0600 From: William Hubbs To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: revisiting our stabilization policy Message-ID: <20140115153036.GA1433@laptop.home> Mail-Followup-To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org References: <20140114213719.GA2684@laptop.home> <52D6715F.8000502@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-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="1yeeQ81UyVL57Vl7" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <52D6715F.8000502@gentoo.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-Archives-Salt: 6db98d66-59c8-485b-a3f9-384a167be8a1 X-Archives-Hash: cc2452c96f68928e4ad9db5268ad3b5a --1yeeQ81UyVL57Vl7 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 03:30:39PM +0400, Sergey Popov wrote: > 15.01.2014 01:37, William Hubbs =D0=BF=D0=B8=D1=88=D0=B5=D1=82: > > All, > >=20 > > 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. >=20 > And by the way, the only arches left there are ppc and ppc64, which are > NOT major ones. Sparc is also still on that bug, and according to the council decision I sited, these arch's are still treated like major arch's. Wrt your comment about x86 and amd64 having agreements that maintainers can stabilize packages on those arch's, I thought amd64 did, but I didn't know about x86. Formal policy says that all stabilizations must be done by arch teams unless you have special arrangements with them [1], so my questions still stand. 1. Should we make it policy that maintainers can stabilize packages on arch's they have access to? 2. See Rich's message in this thread for my other concern; he spells it out pretty well -- what should we do about architectures the maintainer does not have access to? 3. Also, another interesting question has come up in this thread, that of non-binary packages. Should we give maintainers the option of stabilizing them on all arch's themselves? William [1] http://devmanual.gentoo.org/keywording/index.html --1yeeQ81UyVL57Vl7 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAlLWqZwACgkQblQW9DDEZTjeuACgnfC9f0bzICaEy2y05MYC0J+N i0UAnRKMtLGZVA9eThJKj5Ki5HsQXGLZ =eZYO -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --1yeeQ81UyVL57Vl7--