From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A61F8139694 for ; Tue, 25 Jul 2017 13:22:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 4C9B61FC05C; Tue, 25 Jul 2017 13:22:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-yw0-x243.google.com (mail-yw0-x243.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c05::243]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 05D491FC007 for ; Tue, 25 Jul 2017 13:22:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-yw0-x243.google.com with SMTP id p68so2869989ywg.5 for ; Tue, 25 Jul 2017 06:22:16 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to; bh=FIHU89yc4tBG29ncnz2QlRcxRgK86b1WLl/IRJ2ssLw=; b=CMsWbtV2WpzSLF3C3P+b0BGqLPT8L8uTgcX2ULJOv3/VFrbCq/5OaW5eerePidufug FTQh3t2KSIPqvN6tdStm2FVTNuP0vSr7NhXGVMRgbjtYdmdEBRUX5n0S2SCv+Rki8+xl /zHl7MFvIOOCeARb5pl04mOux5Ck6C7KlLLkOwgJv7BuTt/35e21M269HZN+jVMgmuvs 85ux5YJ1eqJnmJWN9poozAGbNptgSLKsyiZ96pO3bSTcXqjqjQ/Z8TijZ2OHg133jxwi /NS1nm+J5ffIpaSVcjLRfEWdf9IysYtk1xoicCi4gUT3aJhTXudJYfTqR1IURATUOCTB Echg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject:to; bh=FIHU89yc4tBG29ncnz2QlRcxRgK86b1WLl/IRJ2ssLw=; b=Bnpve0A+wgpoUqku8bS4E5CFNiU9/op6l0GuYJNhIu+nhmi8jX0hoyUNHL1ZTilaA4 831UxwJny6cD5KaIpuS36W0JhskvsCpbihjRSKxcTCSo0FCd/IqJLXzyRLaVdd4Nn31q vhHTF1T5TrleGUFuklh+p0ZbeiOxZlguRZIjPS+McImYjx+moZ9JwBEC8fENgDvzx7u9 Mj67Zyn8Gba+pt0jn1ULqOldv68/JGzrQVWTxtfeHhwhlfVHyM79DaO2SLZ9UM8pqESm 36QOn5/OxRIqdNmlitx2X2rpQEqNFJZjq/qlTa21EINvLkCuFrXIYJbYJqmysZHzazhg DKZA== X-Gm-Message-State: AIVw112U64BK5/aFCwbgZwVkgTEKq6WHUVyMD6Skv/I7SQv9fJhFl3f9 rVeDGoE//DXE0EFi1inG/9R826oYqTJ8 X-Received: by 10.37.71.6 with SMTP id u6mr6894392yba.219.1500988935620; Tue, 25 Jul 2017 06:22:15 -0700 (PDT) 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 Sender: freemanrich@gmail.com Received: by 10.129.71.3 with HTTP; Tue, 25 Jul 2017 06:22:14 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <10267d25-547b-cbe1-7fdd-40200e7bae4b@gentoo.org> References: <20170724222223.6d359e47@sf> <10267d25-547b-cbe1-7fdd-40200e7bae4b@gentoo.org> From: Rich Freeman Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2017 09:22:14 -0400 X-Google-Sender-Auth: GrER25RMs6tJCVkbK9csqWPja9k Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] Future of gentoo's stable and unstable trees: what are your thoughts? To: gentoo-dev Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Archives-Salt: 4dafdd2f-56b1-4fbe-bee2-1b92f17bdff3 X-Archives-Hash: 1a2d9771ff17e3adec885fcbf7f346ba On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 9:10 AM, Michael Palimaka wrote: > > The 30 day waiting period is useful for smoking out major upstream bugs, > but can't replace stabilisation integration testing. For example, > package foobar may build fine in ~arch but fails in stable because it > needs a newer libbaz. > I think this is a good reason why everything should be at least build-tested on a stable tree before getting stabilized. Now, that might not be on each arch if it is truly arch-independent (and if arches keep the dependencies reasonably in sync). This might be a situation where a compromise could exist. Have some kind of flag (in metadata, or maybe the ebuild) that indicates that the maintainer believes the package is low-risk to stabilize purely on a build test. Then after 30 days in testing a tinderbox could build-test the package and stabilize it automatically. If the package is considered at-risk then it goes through manual testing, either by the maintainer or an arch team. This will also encourage the teams doing testing to actually do more testing on the packages that would benefit from it. We wouldn't set hard criteria but leave it up to maintainer discretion, with a guideline being that past performance is probably a good predictor of future results. -- Rich