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 65DA0138247 for ; Thu, 16 Jan 2014 06:27:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id BFDEDE0AEC; Thu, 16 Jan 2014 06:27:13 +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 C48A8E0ABC for ; Thu, 16 Jan 2014 06:27:12 +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 A110733F5E5 for ; Thu, 16 Jan 2014 06:27:11 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <52D77BB9.10107@gentoo.org> Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2014 10:27:05 +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> <52D6D489.9030302@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <52D6D489.9030302@gentoo.org> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5.2 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="vPFiS4vkMDq2QKNR167MTRQohi0KPwHul" X-Archives-Salt: ef90498f-d4ee-4c57-b78d-461497be0fe8 X-Archives-Hash: e6d555e815dd40d1a328b6f0f2722da2 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --vPFiS4vkMDq2QKNR167MTRQohi0KPwHul Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 15.01.2014 22:33, Thomas Sachau =D0=BF=D0=B8=D1=88=D0=B5=D1=82: > William Hubbs schrieb: >=20 >> Thoughts? >> >> William >> >> [1] http://bugs.gentoo.org/487332 >> [2] http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/meeting-logs/20130917-summar= y.txt >> >=20 > I see 2 cases here: >=20 > 1. specific or all arch teams allow maintainers to stabilize packages o= n > 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 maintaine= r > 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. >=20 > 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 tim= e > 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 i= n > 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. >=20 > short summary: >=20 > -in agreement with arch teams, following stabilization policy and havin= g > 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 matche= s > the abilities of the arch team again. >=20 Thanks, for the proposal. IIRC, there was similar backroom agreement in some minor arches, look at how armin76 stabilized packages earlier - sometimes he drops vast amount of keywords on ia64/sparc/m68k to unstable in stabilization requests. And i think we should continue this practice. --=20 Best regards, Sergey Popov Gentoo developer Gentoo Desktop Effects project lead Gentoo Qt project lead Gentoo Proxy maintainers project lead --vPFiS4vkMDq2QKNR167MTRQohi0KPwHul 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/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJS13u5AAoJECo/aRed926758UH/jeZD4FyI94tLPHU2AFWKbjy C+aWBHQY62k9fnabTyCdBLG7jliE8Fl+5+rT4QmH0I+fp6dxZuvWaJfdndkMr1V2 8AwbH8A7YJkDITfJU7WijgKb4R0qWsFDS/si3PPR9dGjll+gPOfedcfoLBNbiU3C aIYALiL+ObIxcuKNaqh9lAfU+eBcu0muUlZAyxxW8ge/aYNlTuCC65AtgpahyWM7 LdbkxQ4XLksuJiwEG2mx9Vegb/0W9U2UoJ/mWYUgTcyRfnKpMc0OPgMxWNVsp985 KlU1a5TrdmUE4ZDol2CZSTpp0jaeteHpz5u98Vk1JGlZApI3Oneu3ymAa7+tyRw= =FNH5 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --vPFiS4vkMDq2QKNR167MTRQohi0KPwHul--