On Sun, 14 Aug 2016 23:35:58 +0200
Kristian Fiskerstrand <k_f@gentoo.org> wrote:

> During the latest Council meeting it was determined to set up a new
> Working Group to come up with recommendations for improving the state
> of the stable tree at a later Council meeting.
> 
> Some initial items it was suggested the WG look into is
>  * The b.g.o workflow, bugs should not be considered fixed until the
>    fix has reached the stable tree. Today the InVCS keyword exists for
>    this purpose, but it is used to varying degree amongst developers.
>    Will a workflow change to introduce a new status, e.g RESOLVED
>    NeedsStable (name for illustration purpose only) incentivize
>    developers to not close bugs before it is fixed?
> 
>  * Are there ways to reduce the stabilization lag of packages
>      - looking into the effectiveness of ALLARCHES and its use
>      - possibility for maintainer to stabilize packages themselves for
>        architectures they have access to (including whether there
> might be a need for changes to gentoo infrastructure to facilitate
>        this)
>      - Tinderboxing / Automatic tools build test packages and reverse
>        dependencies in order to assist in stabilization
> 
> Other suggestions are up to the WG to come up with and write up a
> final report to the council with the summary of these discussions.
> 
> I've volunteered to chair such as working group. If you want to
> participate in it please respond to this thread. Additionally I've set
> up #gentoo-wg-stable as a place of coordination.
> 

Don't forget to get input from current (active?) arch teams how they
work and do their stuff. IMHO the whole bugzilla workflow etc. is just
a small piece in the whole stabilization business.


Regards,
Markus