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 ED933139694 for ; Tue, 11 Jul 2017 11:57:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 60E82274010; Tue, 11 Jul 2017 11:57:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 082C521400C for ; Tue, 11 Jul 2017 11:57:01 +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 E23393418B0 for ; Tue, 11 Jul 2017 11:57:00 +0000 (UTC) From: Agostino Sarubbo To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] taking a break from arches stabilization Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2017 13:56:58 +0200 Message-ID: <2771730.jmWXe6qd3T@wanheda> User-Agent: KMail/4.14.10 (Linux/4.9.34-gentoo; KDE/4.14.32; x86_64; ; ) In-Reply-To: <20170711103249.28e01d35@abudhabi.paradoxon.rec> References: <1897557.6sYsMVzEX5@wanheda> <20170711103249.28e01d35@abudhabi.paradoxon.rec> 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: b76b933f-8c94-40f9-a174-03cb054be8c3 X-Archives-Hash: 1c28fdf612d2967463b052e302db5c2a Thanks all for the 'appreciation'. I'd like to remember that I'm not going away nor I'm retiring, I will just avoid to touch stabilizations, unless the stable package is part of my interest. I'd like also to reminder that in the past I monitored the bugs via the bugzilla UI, and in the recent past I used the getatoms script to monitor the load for each arch: for ARCH in alpha amd64 arm ia64 ppc ppc64 sparc x86 do echo "${ARCH}" python \ /root/getatoms.py \ -a "${ARCH}" \ --stablereq \ --no-depends \ --all-bugs > /dev/null 2>&1 grep "=" /etc/portage/package.keywords/test | wc -l echo -ne "\n\n" done Actually we have a result like this: alpha 82 amd64 99 arm 154 ia64 5 ppc 64 ppc64 64 sparc 20 x86 96 Actually the result is increased by the large number of packages in the gstreamer stablereq. I worked daily-by-daily for amd64/x86 and occasionally for an arch. I always picked up the arch which have more bugs from the above list. A always assured that there wasn't an arch with > 200 bugs. Unfortunately I don't have time to work on the arch-specific. But if I can help with 7 arches you shouldn't bother :) On the other side, I respect and 'share' the point of view of the maintainer which has some arch-specific bugs freezed with noone that take care of. It is a fact that for those arches there are few users, so to improve the situation we can: 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 a list here 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. If is not our interest to maintain those alive, just ignore my proposal. -- Agostino Sarubbo Gentoo Linux Developer