* Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: revisiting our stabilization policy
@ 2014-01-16 6:17 99% ` Sergey Popov
0 siblings, 0 replies; 1+ results
From: Sergey Popov @ 2014-01-16 6:17 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-dev
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2582 bytes --]
15.01.2014 19:30, William Hubbs пишет:
> On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 03:30:39PM +0400, Sergey Popov wrote:
>> 15.01.2014 01:37, William Hubbs пишет:
>>> All,
>>>
>>> It is becoming more and more obvious that we do not have enough manpower
>>> 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 are
>> NOT major ones.
>
> 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.
>
> 1. Should we make it policy that maintainers can stabilize packages on
> arch's they have access to?
>
> 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?
>
> 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.
--
Best regards, Sergey Popov
Gentoo developer
Gentoo Desktop Effects project lead
Gentoo Qt project lead
Gentoo Proxy maintainers project lead
[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 555 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 --
2014-01-14 21:37 [gentoo-dev] rfc: revisiting our stabilization policy William Hubbs
2014-01-15 11:30 ` Sergey Popov
2014-01-15 15:30 ` William Hubbs
2014-01-16 6:17 99% ` Sergey Popov
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox