* [gentoo-dev] mass stabilization and non-x86-non-amd64 arches
@ 2011-12-17 15:22 99% "Paweł Hajdan, Jr."
0 siblings, 0 replies; 1+ results
From: "Paweł Hajdan, Jr." @ 2011-12-17 15:22 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-dev
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1119 bytes --]
For several mass-filed stabilization bugs I got comments why I didn't cc
arches like ppc.
One problem is that I cc x86 and amd64 via "edit many bugs at once"
Bugzilla feature, and when filing bugs the script checks that it's
repoman-possible to stabilize given package on x86 and amd64.
Not all packages are even keyworded ~ppc, and I guess there are packages
that can be stabilized on x86 and amd64, but not ppc because of ~ppc
dependencies.
All of that is of course solvable with a smarter script, however I'm
really worried about the additional load on the "rare arches". I
frequently notice they drop stable keywords when asked for a
stabilization of some rare package (and I'm fine with that), and they
may be annoyed by stabilization requests for minor and revision bumps
(which are fine at least for x86, because of the batch-stabilization
workflow; of course other arches are welcome to adopt it too).
What do you think? Should I make my scripts smarter, or is it fine to
just cc x86 and amd64? Is anyone from non-x86-non-amd64 arch teams
annoyed by the queue of stabilization bugs?
[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 203 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [relevance 99%]
Results 1-1 of 1 | reverse | options above
-- pct% links below jump to the message on this page, permalinks otherwise --
2011-12-17 15:22 99% [gentoo-dev] mass stabilization and non-x86-non-amd64 arches "Paweł Hajdan, Jr."
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox