From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: <gentoo-dev+bounces-69566-garchives=archives.gentoo.org@lists.gentoo.org> Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC0BB138A1A for <garchives@archives.gentoo.org>; Mon, 16 Feb 2015 23:19:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id A24D4E0979; Mon, 16 Feb 2015 23:19:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-ob0-f175.google.com (mail-ob0-f175.google.com [209.85.214.175]) (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 938E5E0949 for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Mon, 16 Feb 2015 23:19:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-ob0-f175.google.com with SMTP id va2so47454973obc.6 for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Mon, 16 Feb 2015 15:19:17 -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=EirCoSUOK2mav3WMwCbVFfHLJhbQ5Et7cb6o43ZlXh8=; b=uKs30kP8ZsrfN60FWUS1u0tOUKGuE90OVjnAuqjZvtNtj4tlVjOVvdO7pEfNPkNlRz YKGbmm9vMMhknwZi9ZfCFIy5MgMOklo0l96e0DMZKH3ovzc5xMmrRINXrWCEThfWQlUR QTMNW9JbkIXsAzQhPTUqb6/Z3FUmwpu+0fk/fOGdNZx63Svn+a02ECcSWvEjaficjWpC fT7JNziai1UQjD316N6EknnoLQc7APUHfqFIR/ISbZn3R9dU3P5/bo8GwVmLg9gHbQ9w AjQMwJqGA3EmlVK/nNGkw3SMbEhvuhmAJN+I7sarWNDT9GhuvkwtbluQPviEp1tUQIGF Ykgg== X-Received: by 10.182.84.137 with SMTP id z9mr17018948oby.61.1424128757866; Mon, 16 Feb 2015 15:19:17 -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 h203sm10034044oic.1.2015.02.16.15.19.15 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 16 Feb 2015 15:19:16 -0800 (PST) Sender: William Hubbs <w.d.hubbs@gmail.com> Received: (nullmailer pid 32008 invoked by uid 1000); Mon, 16 Feb 2015 22:47:31 -0000 Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2015 16:47:31 -0600 From: William Hubbs <williamh@gentoo.org> To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Cc: ppc@gentoo.org, ppc64@gentoo.org, alpha@gentoo.org, sparc@gentoo.org, ia64@gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] About reducing or even removing stable tree for some arches Message-ID: <20150216224731.GA31956@linux1> Mail-Followup-To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org, ppc@gentoo.org, ppc64@gentoo.org, alpha@gentoo.org, sparc@gentoo.org, ia64@gentoo.org References: <1424093690.27408.35.camel@gentoo.org> Precedence: bulk List-Post: <mailto:gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org> List-Help: <mailto:gentoo-dev+help@lists.gentoo.org> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+unsubscribe@lists.gentoo.org> List-Subscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+subscribe@lists.gentoo.org> List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail <gentoo-dev.gentoo.org> 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="ibTvN161/egqYuK8" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1424093690.27408.35.camel@gentoo.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.22 (2013-10-16) X-Archives-Salt: e3877810-2455-4761-8f80-ed0a1638d9ef X-Archives-Hash: aaec55cd923d923092acc5bf0153ffdf --ibTvN161/egqYuK8 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. >=20 > Of course I volunteer for doing the work of reducing that stable trees > if relevant arch teams agree. I responded to this earlier, but I don't know what happened to my message since I didn't see it come back. I propose that we look at switching these arch's to dev or exp in the profiles. That way these arch teams can independently stabilize packages they wish to stabilize without holding up the rest of us. Thanks, William --ibTvN161/egqYuK8 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iEYEARECAAYFAlTic4MACgkQblQW9DDEZTjgbACfeXMiAjAdJShxJ9fjNKOcNrcp nhMAnRBhEFlU+lWDJEtrqMorambSOWM3 =30cy -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --ibTvN161/egqYuK8--