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 517FB138247 for ; Wed, 15 Jan 2014 18:34:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 8AEF7E0B74; Wed, 15 Jan 2014 18:33:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 982F3E0B64 for ; Wed, 15 Jan 2014 18:33:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.178.22] (p4FE5FE84.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [79.229.254.132]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: tommy) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 829E433F6B0 for ; Wed, 15 Jan 2014 18:33:55 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <52D6D489.9030302@gentoo.org> Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2014 19:33:45 +0100 From: Thomas Sachau User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:25.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/25.0 SeaMonkey/2.22.1 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> In-Reply-To: <20140114213719.GA2684@laptop.home> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6 OpenPGP: id=211CA2D4 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="FfQJhSoULlf4RIR7PSudr7OrWEiiNrEix" X-Archives-Salt: a341d9ec-fb40-4071-9793-fd45dad04055 X-Archives-Hash: 155c06b5c29fd4ba8f0870ebbae0c35e This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --FfQJhSoULlf4RIR7PSudr7OrWEiiNrEix Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable William Hubbs schrieb: > Thoughts? >=20 > William >=20 > [1] http://bugs.gentoo.org/487332 > [2] http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/meeting-logs/20130917-summary= =2Etxt >=20 I see 2 cases here: 1. specific or all arch teams allow maintainers to stabilize packages on their own, when they follow the arch team stabilization rules (e.g. having a system running with stable keywords for testing the package). This should not reduce the quality of the stable tree (or only to the small amount, that some arch testers do additional checks the maintainer does not do). Reading through this thread, it seems like amd64 and x86 arch teams already use this policy. This sounds like a reasonable agreement, so i am supporting this too. 2. for arches with no such agreement or where the maintainer does not have the needed hardware to test, no action for a certain amount of time usually means, that the arch team is overloaded with work so the only short- to mid-term solution is to reduce the amount of work resulting in smaller amount of stable packages. So i am voting for maintainers dropping stable keywords after a certain amount of time with no actions (maybe with some notice beforehand). This might result in a mixed arch user setup by default, but imho it is still better to have a smaller stable set of core packages and testing packages on top then having either everything on testing or broken/untested/unsupported packages, which are still claimed to be the opposite with the stable keyword. short summary: -in agreement with arch teams, following stabilization policy and having the needed hardware, maintainers should be able to add stable keywords themselves -if either agreement of arch team or needed hardware is missing, keywords should be dropped, so that after some time the workload matches the abilities of the arch team again. --=20 Thomas Sachau Gentoo Linux Developer --FfQJhSoULlf4RIR7PSudr7OrWEiiNrEix 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) Comment: Using GnuPG with SeaMonkey - http://www.enigmail.net/ iJwEAQECAAYFAlLW1I8ACgkQG7kqcTWJkGfaFgP+KFb3GXHGiGA8rc8SdraUyuML TItu0rYTlBdi2axAXbDyMkIH222jXOaFRFh7ZzHMhqsPYW527Cg90LMnD96h+ZNZ YqaQvIcSqLil4uZvNwBQG0iBlgNHsv7+MPxF7+QEo5z2Jpvcl60xdracICSAHSRB 5VHftNRB3Qups8kqXko= =1xon -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --FfQJhSoULlf4RIR7PSudr7OrWEiiNrEix--