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 1AFB9139694 for ; Tue, 25 Jul 2017 09:03:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 8F27B1FC00D; Tue, 25 Jul 2017 09:03:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.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 46F6FE0CCA for ; Tue, 25 Jul 2017 09:03:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: from wanheda (unknown [185.17.106.254]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: ago) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 35670341774; Tue, 25 Jul 2017 09:03:34 +0000 (UTC) From: Agostino Sarubbo To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Cc: wg-stable@gentoo.org, arch-leads@gentoo.org, alpha@gentoo.org, amd64@gentoo.org, amd64-fbsd@gentoo.org, arm@gentoo.org, arm64@gentoo.org, hppa@gentoo.org, ia64@gentoo.org, m68k@gentoo.org, mips@gentoo.org, ppc@gentoo.org, ppc64@gentoo.org, s390@gentoo.org, sh@gentoo.org, sparc@gentoo.org, x86@gentoo.org, x86-fbsd@gentoo.org Subject: [gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] Future of gentoo's stable and unstable trees: what are your thoughts? Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2017 11:03:30 +0200 Message-ID: <2277691.IQrrNmuQfn@wanheda> User-Agent: KMail/4.14.10 (Linux/4.9.34-gentoo; KDE/4.14.32; x86_64; ; ) In-Reply-To: <20170724222223.6d359e47@sf> References: <20170724222223.6d359e47@sf> 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-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" X-Archives-Salt: 10a32c3e-f3ec-4637-a302-843cae33430f X-Archives-Hash: 76e631dcb00267a7805a3ff7c34767f2 Hello Sergei, thanks to bring into the topic which nowadays is a common point of discussion :) On Monday 24 July 2017 22:22:23 Sergei Trofimovich wrote: > 1. lack of automation I'd summarize the techical steps into: 1) get the list of packages 2) test 3) commit to git 4) write on bugzilla 1 is done by getatoms https://github.com/kensington/bugbot 2 is done by the tester in the manner he prefer 3 no official tool available, I used a modified version of https://gitweb.gentoo.org/proj/arch-tools.git/tree/batch-stabilize.py which is still based on CVS 4 no official tool available, I used my own bash script which calls pybugz So, points 3 and 4 needs to be improved, I have the idea on how the script should look, but I have no time to do it and no python knowledge. I can assist everyone that candidate itself to make the tool/script like I did with kensington when he made getatoms. > 2. lack of manpower lack of manpower, so in my opinion reduce a bit the workload. I proposed something in one of my last mail to -dev, the following refers to the arches with very less manpower: 1) Don't file keywordreq, since noone work on them. File directly stablereq. 2) Reduce the number of the stable packages on those arches 3) Make a more visible list (like this list in term of visibility:https://qa-reports.gentoo.org/output/gentoo-ci/output.html) of the arches-dependent bugs so that everyone can contribute to maintain alive the exotic arches. -- Agostino Sarubbo Gentoo Linux Developer