From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C5C51139694 for ; Wed, 12 Jul 2017 14:13:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 69EDA2740F8; Wed, 12 Jul 2017 14:13:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-oi0-x242.google.com (mail-oi0-x242.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c06::242]) (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 17A892740B5 for ; Wed, 12 Jul 2017 14:13:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-oi0-x242.google.com with SMTP id n2so3078479oig.3 for ; Wed, 12 Jul 2017 07:13:23 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=sender:date:from:to:subject:message-id:mail-followup-to:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=KqSjVDlIVF32QNTxhzU1C9OEtaukKHmxU2sClo+rR5M=; b=uWWYbGenDShhTE9CoPPhgw94HhUHxs16vC5GmcJsk/59ncTaS0J05MGuUe6gpXecMs sj9Nf7z+aIVCVqpSNrh42f3iFlSmxrMILZzCFZ/+9EIpbKQNIglL3rnDCD5wJhGR+410 JGiS6ztKF0lrrBHJLFLGEtNRpIto7fL5xu3nW81DmX5uFY5zzdbwJQMezwXqxGbLYgts Jrv2ThHuWbyk2AkMh46izXAIz5LSQ4RB2xvhLrSt5ojGTngg14euIgBJtcUfQnPqrm/q vZClQy6+FEcFrpTkRBeI8nrNlUAW2kQuWk3uxuZaEtYtuxQYoRyzDBY6rSbe6WAJVIC4 nnwg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:sender:date:from:to:subject:message-id :mail-followup-to:references:mime-version:content-disposition :in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=KqSjVDlIVF32QNTxhzU1C9OEtaukKHmxU2sClo+rR5M=; b=SPxUr1MiMEHRw2vaQRgXMIEPDXhoEm7dj5o5yVgk3PUUn1naQFJjCnagdbw6DjYV8S uy9HqbPoRtJqP7hXbZA7J64cqOfdOJIzyl6P+c+6g/AoRsvGjzYnTmZSY5BlNsBDMd83 lJO4DcbYLEStz1y8gy8eAzScwIMQyPVa9zejIjetSqdC5ZWXQLefJc7JGbS3vyobqYDT DVx1rhnPuN6creJdzxi9iAOFP2CuTNDeLPeFcEMdkhk0g1gl+MNlUqZgVomjGM3EbQFr VJNUrDmjosEBVw0VvLVDr24Q5UJUfW+m094hAQX/mJulLmUnt7meFGFuMsZpo/G84Trp luQQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AIVw111vVK7yeShuuqGCvSEJ4TDO/n9L1TMNVyjsu2fnejaZDW8USxUH lg4w/M/T54u2LJWQ X-Received: by 10.202.187.198 with SMTP id l189mr3586058oif.32.1499868803078; Wed, 12 Jul 2017 07:13:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from linux1 (cpe-66-68-34-247.austin.res.rr.com. [66.68.34.247]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id j84sm4223359oiy.36.2017.07.12.07.13.22 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 bits=256/256); Wed, 12 Jul 2017 07:13:22 -0700 (PDT) Sender: William Hubbs Received: (nullmailer pid 25070 invoked by uid 1000); Wed, 12 Jul 2017 14:13:21 -0000 Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2017 09:13:21 -0500 From: William Hubbs To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: taking a break from arches stabilization Message-ID: <20170712141321.GB24261@linux1.home> Mail-Followup-To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org References: <20170711022906.39a6a2bfd78fb8e6f5f61b6f@gentoo.org> <0cb79760-99bd-9b95-8771-23af851e71c3@gentoo.org> <9069747f-2e1d-5573-e72d-f965deabb3c5@gentoo.org> <90786400-68ed-d443-5a81-6665bd942a26@gentoo.org> <10b75b04-7a56-2560-2223-2b1f3aa291db@gentoo.org> <43a295c3-d156-24bf-b679-39d0ac19181c@gentoo.org> <690840bf-5be9-89a5-8570-4b26daa6d422@gentoo.org> <75c94306-b7f5-03a3-fd8e-8b883f43d0f9@gentoo.org> 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-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="NDin8bjvE/0mNLFQ" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <75c94306-b7f5-03a3-fd8e-8b883f43d0f9@gentoo.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.7.2 (2016-11-26) X-Archives-Salt: 1a6d21b1-8130-4db3-a0ab-7cb0a6e4ddd3 X-Archives-Hash: 1d61880502bac8779824680b9700c490 --NDin8bjvE/0mNLFQ Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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. >=20 > 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 --NDin8bjvE/0mNLFQ Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iF0EARECAB0WIQTVeuxEZo4uUHOkQAluVBb0MMRlOAUCWWYuegAKCRBuVBb0MMRl OGFeAKCQA1Y5x8Icw80E+eSzfQg35ACc9gCdFiqXrv/akYVDXmFgzn3mDi6C8EQ= =nTQT -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --NDin8bjvE/0mNLFQ--