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 7B053138247 for ; Thu, 16 Jan 2014 06:18:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 405D0E0A01; Thu, 16 Jan 2014 06:18:07 +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 3A7CFE09C2 for ; Thu, 16 Jan 2014 06:18:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [91.220.220.251] (pinkbyte.micronet-rostov.ru [91.220.220.251]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: pinkbyte) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id CFC5133F43E for ; Thu, 16 Jan 2014 06:18:04 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <52D77990.7060506@gentoo.org> Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2014 10:17:52 +0400 From: Sergey Popov User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20131113 Thunderbird/17.0.9 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> <52D6715F.8000502@gentoo.org> <20140115153036.GA1433@laptop.home> In-Reply-To: <20140115153036.GA1433@laptop.home> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5.2 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="TVq0ShFqSv7D0hXvkdHSUI0UmslHROvc7" X-Archives-Salt: ef7d5f20-2b24-4512-9975-78646fbfaae2 X-Archives-Hash: 6e2be091c162112fbb75886bf1008a0b This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --TVq0ShFqSv7D0hXvkdHSUI0UmslHROvc7 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 15.01.2014 19:30, William Hubbs =D0=BF=D0=B8=D1=88=D0=B5=D1=82: > On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 03:30:39PM +0400, Sergey Popov wrote: >> 15.01.2014 01:37, William Hubbs =D0=BF=D0=B8=D1=88=D0=B5=D1=82: >>> All, >>> >>> It is becoming more and more obvious that we do not have enough manpo= wer >>> on the arch teams, even some of the ones we consider major arch's, to= >>> keep up with stabilization requests. For example, there is this bug [= 1], >>> which is blocking the stabilization of several important packages. >> >> And by the way, the only arches left there are ppc and ppc64, which ar= e >> NOT major ones. >=20 > Sparc is also still on that bug, and according to the council decision = I > sited, these arch's are still treated like major arch's. Well, to be honest, personally i consider only amd64 and x86(and maybe arm) as major arches, other are minor in my eyes. Council decision is more about arches, that crucially lacks manpower. > Wrt your comment about x86 and amd64 having agreements that maintainers= > can stabilize packages on those arch's, I thought amd64 did, but I > didn't know about x86. It's not mentioned, yeah, i was not aware about it for some time. Probably it should be mentioned in Gentoo Development Guide. > Formal policy says that all stabilizations must be done by arch teams > unless you have special arrangements with them [1], so my questions > still stand. >=20 > 1. Should we make it policy that maintainers can stabilize packages on > arch's they have access to? >=20 > 2. See Rich's message in this thread for my other concern; he spells it= > out pretty well -- what should we do about architectures the maintainer= > does not have access to? >=20 > 3. Also, another interesting question has come up in this thread, that = of > non-binary packages. Should we give maintainers the option of > stabilizing them on all arch's themselves? 1. If you know how to test it properly, know arch-specific problems(aligning, endianness, ABI breakage) and how to fix it - then, probably yes. But usually maintainers are bored to do proper testing. 2. I think - no. You can not test it - you can not stabilize it, period. 3. If code is interpreted rather then compiled, it does not matter that it is properly ported on minor arches. I knew dozens of examples with Perl and Python packages(not sure about Ruby, but Hans said that it happens with it too). So, i would not treat such packages differently. --=20 Best regards, Sergey Popov Gentoo developer Gentoo Desktop Effects project lead Gentoo Qt project lead Gentoo Proxy maintainers project lead --TVq0ShFqSv7D0hXvkdHSUI0UmslHROvc7 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 Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJS13mRAAoJECo/aRed9267CJUH/3OhJlCdgvJQcZKVv0KNxzsf LVE1YVe3xOqzYFW+5bDunpl1mnsWKPLmanPd4XO+zXCIJR6xB82pziDAL2rM32/C VX6REcMWhWsdfPO+/EgXxIRS4orUDiOmlaUH9U/W1Cbr7SgVss1mYg/sosApg09m sA+CabTubrL+YPSzh3GzOuxrnSAh7Md8VYwNkxifjbzePcpnqQJ8dRDVEfpHkz4l R9CdYBHNhSSegg1whO9YKuHPmkkw6HwNKgyxQzdQ7TiaH4ldPmTlBYEgyFZSzwt0 oWMpHTKNIXJW6KdlLhwAI34eqWIXiD74IaeYFLmkVkZ0ZUxbngxaiocdIVMrZYY= =OZPR -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --TVq0ShFqSv7D0hXvkdHSUI0UmslHROvc7--