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 6F075138247 for ; Wed, 15 Jan 2014 19:07:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id EA43AE0B92; Wed, 15 Jan 2014 19:07:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-oa0-f53.google.com (mail-oa0-f53.google.com [209.85.219.53]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E6DEEE0B8C for ; Wed, 15 Jan 2014 19:07:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-oa0-f53.google.com with SMTP id m1so509351oag.40 for ; Wed, 15 Jan 2014 11:07:45 -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=HCtYwzxx/VjCeSe8At2q1a65U7R/lw4fqMCbU8aFlYM=; b=UuaX9zLdkl/pdgfm5ZJXUZWFoFWzUwGJPe69G60G3bayqDetyiPBEqg+EUqAtkPelZ xHGlcSudwhQDjIDlHt6KlPImf8H/y+Sp9EVj7+fPN4eM3NIQNn9aIONsh6EaOg8UmOws PNZCezoIVRjHoee7uB3F0vOk3M3tc+LP9Qf+5Ye98Gl910haUd9va+vdKHAjrjV1KDRH arYJU0e6Ze4P9VOaijMNbcCDO/79CDgcBh82EX5j4koY+KwUOmZx/WdAurEm6Po4M+d8 TV+J9SNDEETr9mPstyqKScpYONyrq7i5ztCB9VmardhERp4bDkS4gO8sR8sfgvMzvD45 smCw== X-Received: by 10.182.92.231 with SMTP id cp7mr2116881obb.82.1389812864970; Wed, 15 Jan 2014 11:07:44 -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 n3sm6110870oep.2.2014.01.15.11.07.41 for (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 15 Jan 2014 11:07:43 -0800 (PST) Sender: William Hubbs Received: by laptop (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Wed, 15 Jan 2014 13:07:44 -0600 Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2014 13:07:44 -0600 From: William Hubbs To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: revisiting our stabilization policy Message-ID: <20140115190744.GA2645@laptop.home> Mail-Followup-To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org References: <20140114213719.GA2684@laptop.home> <52D6D489.9030302@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="IS0zKkzwUGydFO0o" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <52D6D489.9030302@gentoo.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-Archives-Salt: c40d06df-4038-4e7c-a37a-4212f01cfde4 X-Archives-Hash: 4f9643a88db6d2d0f508585a810ae6eb --IS0zKkzwUGydFO0o Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 07:33:45PM +0100, Thomas Sachau wrote: > William Hubbs schrieb: >=20 > > Thoughts? > >=20 > > William > >=20 > > [1] http://bugs.gentoo.org/487332 > > [2] http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/meeting-logs/20130917-summary= =2Etxt > >=20 >=20 > I see 2 cases here: >=20 > 1. specific or all arch teams allow maintainers to stabilize packages on > their own, when they follow the arch team stabilization rules (e.g. > having a system running with stable keywords for testing the package). > This should not reduce the quality of the stable tree (or only to the > small amount, that some arch testers do additional checks the maintainer > does not do). Reading through this thread, it seems like amd64 and x86 > arch teams already use this policy. This sounds like a reasonable > agreement, so i am supporting this too. >=20 > 2. for arches with no such agreement or where the maintainer does not > have the needed hardware to test, no action for a certain amount of time > usually means, that the arch team is overloaded with work so the only > short- to mid-term solution is to reduce the amount of work resulting in > smaller amount of stable packages. So i am voting for maintainers > dropping stable keywords after a certain amount of time with no actions > (maybe with some notice beforehand). This might result in a mixed arch > user setup by default, but imho it is still better to have a smaller > stable set of core packages and testing packages on top then having > either everything on testing or broken/untested/unsupported packages, > which are still claimed to be the opposite with the stable keyword. >=20 > short summary: >=20 > -in agreement with arch teams, following stabilization policy and having > the needed hardware, maintainers should be able to add stable keywords > themselves > -if either agreement of arch team or needed hardware is missing, > keywords should be dropped, so that after some time the workload matches > the abilities of the arch team again. When you say "drop keywords" do you mean: 1) revert the old version back to ~arch or 2) remove the old version. As a maintainer, I would rather do 2, because I do not want to backport fixes to the old version. William --IS0zKkzwUGydFO0o Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAlLW3IAACgkQblQW9DDEZThwnwCeL1+bQbUUNBJLWr9UKbtz0ghu rUUAn1yNn6GM4VGTGiNw3ZxHqXHAkeQ3 =rfH1 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --IS0zKkzwUGydFO0o--