Re: [gentoo-dev] robo-stable bugs

["\"Paweł Hajdan, Jr.\"" <phajdan.jr@gentoo.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1360 bytes --]

On 5/21/13 1:17 PM, Alexis Ballier wrote:
> On Tue, 21 May 2013 20:51:52 +0100 Markos Chandras
> <hwoarang@gentoo.org> wrote:
>> I'd rather not see this process changes, because it has helped 
>> bringing the stable tree up2date. However, given that *a few*
>> people don't like it, I suggest you don't file bugs for packages
>> owned by them.
> 
> +1
> 
> I am (was) unhappy with some corner cases that used to happen (like 
> bug #428968 ) but overall I consider it very useful;

Thanks, Alexis.

One note about that bug: with lots of bugs being filed, it's not really
feasible for me to track comments like that one. If there was a bug on
file about dev-ml/camlp5 breaking coq, my script wouldn't consider
dev-ml/camlp5 for stabilization - I think this is the right thing for
you to do in such cases, much better than "implicit" bugs that are not
in the bug tracker. :)

> I'm even becoming more lazy and do not look for stable candidates
> because I know some day I'll have an automated request :P

Note that there are several things my script will ignore:

1. Packages with any bugs open.
2. Packages which have at least one ~arch dependency.

I still recommend doing some pass over packages you maintain to look for
any stable candidates. Hopefully thanks to the script you should need to
do that less often.

Paweł


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 203 bytes --]