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 A5C77139694 for ; Tue, 25 Jul 2017 07:44:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 5B46C1FC00D; Tue, 25 Jul 2017 07:44:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (mail.gentoo.org [IPv6:2001:470:ea4a:1:5054:ff:fec7:86e4]) (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 165A5E0CAE for ; Tue, 25 Jul 2017 07:44:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: from sf (host81-147-13-134.range81-147.btcentralplus.com [81.147.13.134]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: slyfox) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 626C83417F8; Tue, 25 Jul 2017 07:44:14 +0000 (UTC) Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2017 08:44:03 +0100 From: Sergei Trofimovich To: Peter Stuge Cc: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Future of gentoo's stable and unstable trees: what are your thoughts? Message-ID: <20170725084403.4dfc85af@sf> In-Reply-To: <20170724232244.GT12397@stuge.se> References: <20170724222223.6d359e47@sf> <20170724232244.GT12397@stuge.se> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.14.1 (GTK+ 2.24.31; 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-sha1; boundary="Sig_/3Yg2AwJDYAUlVQ/dlCtka97"; protocol="application/pgp-signature" X-Archives-Salt: 08792dd7-58fd-4231-9c11-1920b0bcbdad X-Archives-Hash: c028e5ab398c1e58874c5754d8818c37 --Sig_/3Yg2AwJDYAUlVQ/dlCtka97 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon, 24 Jul 2017 23:22:44 +0000 Peter Stuge wrote: > Thank you for working on this. >=20 > Sergei Trofimovich wrote: > > Can this proposal make a difference and make gentoo better and > > easier to work with? > >=20 > > Does it try to attack the right thing? > >=20 > > Does it completely miss the point? =20 >=20 > I hold a perhaps radical view: I would like to simply remove stable. >=20 > I continue to feel that maintaining two worlds (stable+unstable) > carries with it an unneccessary cost. >=20 > Based solely on how excellently unstable (and similar approaches before > using Gentoo) works for me in practice, I believe that skipping stable > and instead focusing efforts on resolving problems reported in unstable > a little quicker would yield a much better end result - and would net > positive dev time. Good point. Stable is used by Gentoo to guard against wide-spread bugs sneaking into everyone's systems: SIGSEGVing bootloaders (hard to recover), crashing at startup browsers (hard to find a safe point to rollback), hosed toolchains (hard to diagnose in time), widespread build breakages due to incompatible API (or ABI) changes upstream (hard to recover). It takes time to identify and devise mitigation for new issues. What would be the mitigation mechanisims for those when we know something is broken? Currently we say STABLE should work better as packages there had wider and longer testing. Why would removing stable speed things up? Due to smaller amount of bugs to deal with? Do you think Gentoo needs KEYWORDS at all? Should packages be tracked as "seemingly working" on the arch or package.mask is enough? > > Does it sound fun? =20 >=20 > Sorry, no, not to me. It sounds like "double" overhead. :\ >=20 >=20 > I consider dev time a precious resource. Devs should need to do as > few things as possible, to keep things going, and should be able to > immediately reuse as much input from the wider community as possible. >=20 > More troubleshooting and fixing "hard" problems, less routine work. Can you clarify what exactly you see currently as a routine work on the dev side WRT stable? Fixing bugs for non-latest packages? Tracking manually lists for stabilization? Something else? Thanks! --=20 Sergei --Sig_/3Yg2AwJDYAUlVQ/dlCtka97 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Description: Цифровая подпись OpenPGP -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iF0EARECAB0WIQSZKa0VG5avZRlY01hxoe52YR/zqgUCWXb2wwAKCRBxoe52YR/z qlsZAJ9c29fIWAZgNvO5rPNOTh9CJIDrGgCcDxqmnF9NASvUgIMPy8y0Jxpyl4I= =JPkN -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Sig_/3Yg2AwJDYAUlVQ/dlCtka97--