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 015DC138A1A for ; Tue, 17 Feb 2015 04:49:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 4BB01E0969; Tue, 17 Feb 2015 04:49:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 47A0FE092A for ; Tue, 17 Feb 2015 04:49:41 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pomiot.lan (77-253-151-206.adsl.inetia.pl [77.253.151.206]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: mgorny) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D44573407A3; Tue, 17 Feb 2015 04:49:37 +0000 (UTC) Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2015 05:49:23 +0100 From: =?UTF-8?B?TWljaGHFgiBHw7Nybnk=?= To: William Hubbs Cc: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org, 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: <20150217054923.732ec7bb@pomiot.lan> In-Reply-To: <20150216163712.GA1506@linux1> References: <1424093690.27408.35.camel@gentoo.org> <20150216163712.GA1506@linux1> Organization: Gentoo X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.11.1 (GTK+ 2.24.25; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) 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-sha512; boundary="Sig_/KAQsiBZg36xEuZgsXDFHLyE"; protocol="application/pgp-signature" X-Archives-Salt: 4d2c42e0-5a4a-4558-83c1-6ea9ea874b84 X-Archives-Hash: 75428de725ba94c713f6a0f8b4fb523f --Sig_/KAQsiBZg36xEuZgsXDFHLyE Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Dnia 2015-02-16, o godz. 10:37:12 William Hubbs napisa=C5=82(a): > 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 > 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. Sounds like a very bad idea. This will only cause developers to frequently break the tree accidentally because of no repoman checks by default. --=20 Best regards, Micha=C5=82 G=C3=B3rny --Sig_/KAQsiBZg36xEuZgsXDFHLyE Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQJ8BAEBCgBmBQJU4shWXxSAAAAAAC4AKGlzc3Vlci1mcHJAbm90YXRpb25zLm9w ZW5wZ3AuZmlmdGhob3JzZW1hbi5uZXQ2REJCMDdDQzRGMERBRDA2RUEwQUZFNDFC MDdBMUFFQUVGQjQ0NjRFAAoJELB6GurvtEZOrMkQAKf6CyTYAalixdutmFigwTes hWdgKWt94hyVXv/KJ2uGOx5U8bgFrl7cWppVo5iSjrkc3njHKQhJn2puxgI9+Dr+ 2RV81ZURs9qhZGHWUEsFz3g8aggthjnHseJW44o0C/7n3CUihG6CfBH32Q0VjneA +rKlitzdZ/8GlTS/Niw5aVxoWG3utrY9S40wQBe1FG5O71L/UwZRddr3bM/4bir9 TQ5fpQCWPd7Hu6vKF4ZG47sGit0o+fsDJbX/N4yLH13/QXy0a/gG+oDfjhuAYSHN gNK8mVJOwpEqxetRyIHOhlKI1mqKx4bc/u3pTteNjTWx//xb3diGt3zm0Rt2RXBo 9Dsw/GPhbuTjPvHi+Owo3rvrv4F8HXOXeoQ7DtmVcv6wmZTWtUm5+l43uoGoQpkx MTmsiBC9qqNeRaekrQpTaNgZgpHT1++on4uCg/U4e5Rp90vtPoYb4tBNEDdIOzAu vl0/V//6LACrHvcNae/bqfzGCLCiBiXcLLxpxREo4o7ediQx3n2koxt5FzDmH8PS NtWbfMXEJDMn/0WKChoBJkNdePONAXVTqtWAdn2zxhy8cdaFFoboT4DauxflUUcL 2WnbXg7epI20Iw0vTfaaGya4akZl38YbcQL8vsloUaJlz9hcvf0iTVNXnf1xBUw8 4PDGQKTmBIFnkZEXZkl8 =WCyg -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Sig_/KAQsiBZg36xEuZgsXDFHLyE--