From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B411138247 for ; Wed, 15 Jan 2014 17:20:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id CF404E0B87; Wed, 15 Jan 2014 17:19:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mx1.mthode.org (rrcs-24-173-105-85.sw.biz.rr.com [24.173.105.85]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D2E1AE0B59 for ; Wed, 15 Jan 2014 17:19:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [10.0.3.42] (unknown [10.0.3.42]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.mthode.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0951714C68 for ; Wed, 15 Jan 2014 12:23:13 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <52D6C343.5060108@gentoo.org> Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2014 11:20:03 -0600 From: Matthew Thode User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.2.0 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] rfc: revisiting our stabilization policy References: <20140114213719.GA2684@laptop.home> <52D5B2CA.5030407@gentoo.org> <20140114223312.GA3337@laptop.home> <52D5BDAD.4030808@gentoo.org> <20140114231113.GA3393@laptop.home> <52D5DAB6.1000609@gentoo.org> <20140115020802.700b1568@TOMWIJ-GENTOO> <52D5E03C.3010900@gentoo.org> <20140115022337.4336618d@TOMWIJ-GENTOO> <52D5E60A.80600@gentoo.org> <20140115020934.GA3886@laptop.home> <20140115034209.73125eb3@TOMWIJ-GENTOO> <52D67208.1070103@gentoo.org> <20140115175722.27b76cb7@TOMWIJ-GENTOO> In-Reply-To: <20140115175722.27b76cb7@TOMWIJ-GENTOO> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="0UBD6CEgg3HPokfAfmTDhqSAJJ14AKKJa" X-Archives-Salt: 600117f3-d271-4c56-992e-75fc8383f984 X-Archives-Hash: 84205599c6c702ee95483ccb336a55de This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --0UBD6CEgg3HPokfAfmTDhqSAJJ14AKKJa Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 01/15/2014 10:57 AM, Tom Wijsman wrote: > On Wed, 15 Jan 2014 15:33:28 +0400 > Sergey Popov wrote: >=20 >> 15.01.2014 06:42, Tom Wijsman =D0=BF=D0=B8=D1=88=D0=B5=D1=82: >>> And for that occasional mis-guess, *boohoo*, the user can just file >>> a bug; which ironically even happens occasionally for stable >>> packages. >> >> If we blindly approves increasing of such mis-guesses, then our QA >> level in arch teams will down below the apropriate level IMO. And >> this is not good first of all for our stable users. >=20 > What I'm saying is that even on arch team stabilized ebuilds bugs > getting filed happens as well; so, it happening for a maintainer > stabilized ebuild wouldn't be so problematic from that perspective. >=20 > But, indeed, it depends on which arch team procedure efforts the > maintainer actually applies; on an own arch it is quite possible for > the maintainer to be near the QA level of the arch team, whereas not > having access to a certain architecture can indeed become problematic. >=20 > So, for the arches the maintainers do have, it depends on what the > maintainers do as much as what the arch teams do; and to be realistic > arch teams might not always do everything as intended, especially under= > time pressure. In my opinion, a maintainer would even spend more time. >=20 > As for arches the maintainer does not have, the available machines > might be usable; though the doubt is whether they have enough power. >=20 > Most of this discussion is hypothetical assuming stabilization stays > (or continues to grow to be more) problematic; who knows we might get > to see the opposite effect that this thread yields some new arch team > members, which could make what we've discussed here not necessary in th= e > short term run. It is clear everyone wants to hold on to the arch teams= =2E >=20 I would like to see the ability for devs to become arch testers for the packages they own on the architectures they have access to. The hard part is enforcing the arch testing guidelines, so maybe this can be considered 'arch tester jr.'. --=20 -- Matthew Thode (prometheanfire) --0UBD6CEgg3HPokfAfmTDhqSAJJ14AKKJa Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJS1sNOAAoJECRx6z5ArFrDm4gQAI8MuKlVQMuiRFKLh4lr2f2r IqeHOUXSmkMC6AzisL82BOd9k51TYu3Wmy143wBcOLOpvgMT5eF/1idH0jPGTuow Rvg7fXS9SXxgqda+rj+fJScs+OPa+k7WTLOrrE2t4Y8xBVjRyaGTwZbWAYFiC2P0 DAn0Ldkj8y+udjY5CtJgoxG4avFXb91WGg6X1O3W5qb99hg5htQcCfkMn76bUuKt Jm2iVmNMz/NbSbCZhLn45qryArjzbQwZFGMEcQb31kW8n7ztSlbMb1ZRb1YD7DPI o6piC91yaGWZn9HyKVf8iVU80tAXtmzUgcbHxmxZSe1fCsLt2/V+hRQhx6ml9Zu/ n0ZSCdPS0mSanoX8CbKBoJhpvANqlXs4J7iFAlbZN0zm52Suq0EKqCqocLqN+wYu bDOIcB11cGRAb3p0B68C6ZpXzZQKY6mtZtqRuTVg26vgUrXylDg4mMZD/j+YSr9g 1LvZdGIrwRTAHnzPiHhXuNyGREKGZa7wACLY1e1lyPqoA4W4+amfnXEJrQjS8Omq Ss/U7h/xS4M99aLOJ2PECJ7iwxmhv71QPV0mw0EItBZ31kA31K+po/gBM+FduIYT 5BgaZFgxC+J2tPK+MY4SUVVSGef4/PhYIodo1abnwTTo+HH5UBUMoMI4FGp92NJz vZs14+9hlg9Ge4S2Yz7U =R+lq -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --0UBD6CEgg3HPokfAfmTDhqSAJJ14AKKJa--