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 208CC138A1A for ; Mon, 16 Feb 2015 23:20:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 96766E09AD; Mon, 16 Feb 2015 23:19:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-ob0-f178.google.com (mail-ob0-f178.google.com [209.85.214.178]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BB185E099E for ; Mon, 16 Feb 2015 23:19:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-ob0-f178.google.com with SMTP id uz6so47311871obc.9 for ; Mon, 16 Feb 2015 15:19:20 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=sender:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:mail-followup-to :references:mime-version:content-type:content-disposition :in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=tTzRpD7zAca6TY3D0nJHWvvvu47hxEcdw9+2zHTYLf4=; b=lw6o1cg0G2PZxdWqqcueOBZqhWXZhVUpsPuD1j3KmYnATnRooiyxFZjeqMwWYEWVEY g+hS//4XHcVIofSxNipiDZ01ZZtVQ9ncWNhsyzVrzn3a/a25saKPGRh6QKzm/MzBtrWd EGLKixmf+mHD/ay26qyU12oCkAZQNHS4AdqZK9GZZJ2ZoaBNPm3wxKJx3HAeFrs5d1nd xHN+ll5ExihHr4wdXBLVuITHE1zJzVbFdTHYXbZ9HGYWE7qdGY7+9g71WTVjp43bKIVY Wx6h06R9Q96y1kJvJM8VgiLn/f3qr1ovzc8UTBHJrbVMRcihdh8u0k/6k0036km+nTuf +YTw== X-Received: by 10.202.211.130 with SMTP id k124mr16223431oig.124.1424128760505; Mon, 16 Feb 2015 15:19:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from linux1 (cpe-76-187-91-128.tx.res.rr.com. [76.187.91.128]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id y9sm10098157obg.26.2015.02.16.15.19.18 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 16 Feb 2015 15:19:19 -0800 (PST) Sender: William Hubbs Received: (nullmailer pid 1785 invoked by uid 1000); Mon, 16 Feb 2015 16:37:12 -0000 Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2015 10:37:12 -0600 From: William Hubbs To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Cc: ppc@gentoo.org, ppc64@gentoo.org, alpha@gentoo.org, sparc@gentoo.org, ia64 Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] About reducing or even removing stable tree for some arches Message-ID: <20150216163712.GA1506@linux1> Mail-Followup-To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org, ppc@gentoo.org, ppc64@gentoo.org, alpha@gentoo.org, sparc@gentoo.org, ia64 References: <1424093690.27408.35.camel@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="vtzGhvizbBRQ85DL" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1424093690.27408.35.camel@gentoo.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.22 (2013-10-16) X-Archives-Salt: 3b09925e-6751-42a9-ab9a-e5fa7712dfd3 X-Archives-Hash: ca97a99b2ee953f05d61bd8c98958999 --vtzGhvizbBRQ85DL Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 02:34:50PM +0100, Pacho Ramos wrote: > Hello >=20 > Every day I am hitting tons of blockers stabilizations and keywording > requests for alpha, sparc, ia64, ppc and ppc64.=20 >=20 > Again, I would suggest to either decrease radically the amount of stable > packages of some of that arches or even make them testing only. >=20 > For reducing their stable tree, my suggestion would be to either keep > their current stage3 packages stable or stage3+some concrete (and > public) list of packages. >=20 > Currently situation is not good at all as we rely on mostly one member > needing to handle most stable work and, if any stablereq has any issue > leading to it not being able to be handled in an "automated" way, the > bug gets blocked for months. Also, keywording work is mostly stalled on > this arches as it's done by even less people. >=20 > The current policy of maintainers dropping keywords after 90 days is > simply not applied because it leads up to that maintainer needing to > kill himself that keyword and ALL the reverse deps keywords and, then, > all that effort should probably be replaced by making the opposite, I > mean, reducing the stable tree of that arches to a minimum and moving > all the other packages to testing. The main advantage of this is that it > needs maybe more effort in one round but it solves the problem for the > future. On the other hand trying to kill keywords of a package *and all > its reverse deps* requires a lot of work every time the problem appears. I think the cleanest way forward would be to mark these arch's dev or exp in the profiles. That way, maintainers don't have to worry about them and the people maintaining the arch's can determine what needs to be stabilized at their own paces. William --vtzGhvizbBRQ85DL Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iEYEARECAAYFAlTiHLgACgkQblQW9DDEZTg6fACfbI1DdatKkd+lTKqASsaW6Bb3 kFoAoIUCoWuAdeE2XNDZptNaAnsaSGH3 =lHJQ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --vtzGhvizbBRQ85DL--