From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1Rbzen-0005Js-Ve for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sat, 17 Dec 2011 19:10:57 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 2B8C021C1F5; Sat, 17 Dec 2011 19:10:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A9FD521C1DD for ; Sat, 17 Dec 2011 19:10:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [10.18.48.87] (193-64-22-82-nat.elisa-mobile.fi [193.64.22.82]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: ssuominen) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7C60D1B4001 for ; Sat, 17 Dec 2011 19:10:09 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <4EECE8E7.5040407@gentoo.org> Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2011 21:09:27 +0200 From: Samuli Suominen User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:8.0) Gecko/20111120 Thunderbird/8.0 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 To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] mass stabilization and non-x86-non-amd64 arches References: <4EECB3A1.6010006@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <4EECB3A1.6010006@gentoo.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Archives-Salt: 29648369-da2b-493a-ad32-41f50142e445 X-Archives-Hash: 1b5da939b6525c3e599653a690db0e1a On 12/17/2011 05:22 PM, "Pawe=C5=82 Hajdan, Jr." wrote: > For several mass-filed stabilization bugs I got comments why I didn't c= c > arches like ppc. > > One problem is that I cc x86 and amd64 via "edit many bugs at once" > Bugzilla feature, and when filing bugs the script checks that it's > repoman-possible to stabilize given package on x86 and amd64. > > Not all packages are even keyworded ~ppc, and I guess there are package= s > that can be stabilized on x86 and amd64, but not ppc because of ~ppc > dependencies. > > All of that is of course solvable with a smarter script, however I'm > really worried about the additional load on the "rare arches". I > frequently notice they drop stable keywords when asked for a > stabilization of some rare package (and I'm fine with that), and they > may be annoyed by stabilization requests for minor and revision bumps > (which are fine at least for x86, because of the batch-stabilization > workflow; of course other arches are welcome to adopt it too). > > What do you think? Should I make my scripts smarter, or is it fine to > just cc x86 and amd64? Is anyone from non-x86-non-amd64 arch teams > annoyed by the queue of stabilization bugs? > For reference, it's http://bugs.gentoo.org/394021 So in this case ppc has stable keyword in x11-misc/fireflies package,=20 then leaving out ppc from the CC in the bug will only increase the=20 workload for the maintainers since they need to reopen the old=20 stabilization bug or file a new one just for ppc. So i'd rather not see any arches added to CC list at all, if you don't=20 do it properly all the way.