From: William Hubbs <williamh@gentoo.org>
To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
Cc: rich0@gentoo.org
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] New Working Group established to evaluate the stable tree
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2016 14:12:48 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160815191248.GA21981@whubbs1.gaikai.biz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAGfcS_m+1csrVHAK8TOgLCeXGaFSZUrpVFErfmMYw9kAa9gJFw@mail.gmail.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1826 bytes --]
On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 02:33:52PM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote:
> I'm fine with maintainers de-keywording packages on their own
> initiative. However, if a maintainer hasn't even built a package on
> an arch, they shouldn't be stabilizing it on that arch. That would
> make the concept of stable meaningless. If it is just ~arch plus a
> time delay, then we should just get rid of the stable keywords and
> instead have portage just filter packages by the date they were
> committed to ~arch.
ok, this makes sense.
> I'd rather see maintainers just yank the last stable package and break
> the depgraph and let the arch teams deal with the cleanup than have
> them mark stuff stable without any testing at all. Or build a script
> that does the keyword cleanup for them. De-keywording late stable
> requests is a solution that is self-correcting. As packages are
> reduced from the stable set then there are fewer stable requests and
> the arch team is better able to focus on the ones they deem important.
> Throwing more packages in stable that aren't actually stable just
> makes that problem worse, and destroys whatever value the stable
> keyword had on the arch. For small arch teams they really should be
> focusing their time on core packages.
Rich, This was my original thinking about this issue. It turned out to
be more controversial than I originally thought -- folks told me that
stable tree users expect stability above all, so breaking the depgraph
is unacceptable, so I'm just trying to find something that is more
palletable.
I have a few bugs right now where I haven't done this because I know it
is going to require "repoman commit --force" to work, and set of our ci
alarms etc. Should I not care about that and just let the arch teams
clean it up?
William
[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 181 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-08-15 19:13 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 60+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-08-14 21:35 [gentoo-dev] New Working Group established to evaluate the stable tree Kristian Fiskerstrand
2016-08-14 21:45 ` Ciaran McCreesh
2016-08-14 21:49 ` Kristian Fiskerstrand
2016-08-14 21:49 ` Kent Fredric
2016-08-14 21:52 ` M. J. Everitt
2016-08-14 22:06 ` Chris Reffett
2016-08-14 21:50 ` Anthony G. Basile
2016-08-14 21:57 ` Ciaran McCreesh
2016-08-14 22:01 ` Kent Fredric
2016-08-15 19:18 ` Andreas K. Hüttel
2016-08-15 19:19 ` Michael Orlitzky
2016-08-15 3:45 ` Jason Zaman
2016-08-15 3:53 ` Kent Fredric
2016-08-15 4:05 ` Jason Zaman
2016-08-15 7:55 ` Brian Dolbec
2016-08-15 8:50 ` Kent Fredric
2016-08-15 10:21 ` Kristian Fiskerstrand
2016-08-18 6:33 ` Daniel Campbell
2016-08-15 13:40 ` Rich Freeman
2016-08-15 15:48 ` Brian Dolbec
2016-08-15 4:29 ` #wg-stable: Reservations about a "STABLE" & "NeedsStable" bugzilla keywords (re: [gentoo-dev] New Working Group established to evaluate the stable tree) Kent Fredric
2016-08-15 4:37 ` Kent Fredric
2016-08-15 12:22 ` james
2016-08-15 12:49 ` Dirkjan Ochtman
2016-08-15 13:03 ` Kristian Fiskerstrand
2016-08-15 13:15 ` Dirkjan Ochtman
2016-08-15 13:25 ` Kristian Fiskerstrand
2016-08-15 14:28 ` james
2016-08-15 18:24 ` Dirkjan Ochtman
2016-08-15 19:30 ` Andreas K. Hüttel
2016-08-15 19:42 ` Rich Freeman
2016-08-21 0:30 ` Daniel Campbell
2016-10-04 17:25 ` Ian Stakenvicius
2016-10-07 2:40 ` Daniel Campbell
2016-08-15 23:00 ` Kent Fredric
2016-08-15 22:50 ` Kent Fredric
2016-08-15 8:00 ` [gentoo-dev] New Working Group established to evaluate the stable tree Pacho Ramos
2016-08-15 8:15 ` Pacho Ramos
2016-08-15 14:19 ` William Hubbs
2016-08-15 14:49 ` Kristian Fiskerstrand
2016-08-15 14:50 ` Kristian Fiskerstrand
2016-08-15 16:12 ` William Hubbs
2016-08-15 17:31 ` William Hubbs
2016-08-15 18:33 ` Rich Freeman
2016-08-15 19:12 ` William Hubbs [this message]
2016-08-15 19:27 ` Rich Freeman
2016-08-15 20:01 ` William Hubbs
2016-08-15 20:05 ` Rich Freeman
2016-08-16 8:02 ` [gentoo-dev] " Duncan
2016-08-16 13:52 ` William Hubbs
2016-08-17 8:52 ` [gentoo-dev] " Pacho Ramos
2016-08-17 8:50 ` Pacho Ramos
2016-08-17 13:07 ` Rich Freeman
2016-08-17 14:25 ` Pacho Ramos
2016-08-18 7:32 ` Raymond Jennings
2016-08-15 11:36 ` Kristian Fiskerstrand
2016-08-15 12:24 ` Michael Orlitzky
2016-08-15 13:37 ` Rich Freeman
2016-08-15 23:19 ` Kent Fredric
2016-08-15 19:33 ` Markus Meier
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20160815191248.GA21981@whubbs1.gaikai.biz \
--to=williamh@gentoo.org \
--cc=gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org \
--cc=rich0@gentoo.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox