Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: taking a break from arches stabilization

[William Hubbs <williamh@gentoo.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1190 bytes --]

On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 02:30:34PM +0200, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote:
> On 07/12/2017 01:59 PM, Michael Palimaka wrote:
> > If it's not a stable candidate then why do you use this as an example
> > against build testing-based stabilisations? If there are known issues it
> > should never reach the arch teams in the first place.
> 
> This might be the crux of things, as long as automatic stabilization is
> not triggered by some set of rules (e.g 30 days in ~arch) , and still
> requires manual trigger by, preferably, the maintainer there is likely
> no issue.

This doesn't make sense. If I have to trigger automatic stabilization, it
isn't automatic any more.

I think with an appropriate set of rules automatic stabilization would
be fine. For example:

- foo-2.0 has been in ~arch for 30 days
- there are no open bugs against foo-2.0
- an older version of foo is stable
- all of the dependencies of foo-2.0 are stable

If those conditions are met, in theory there shouldn't be any problem
with stabilizing foo-2.0.

If foo-2.0 is not a stabilization candidate, there probably should be an
open bug in bugzilla stating why it isn't.

Thanks,

William


[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 195 bytes --]