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 070D8139694 for ; Tue, 25 Jul 2017 14:28:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id A3D9CE0E40; Tue, 25 Jul 2017 14:28:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-yw0-x242.google.com (mail-yw0-x242.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c05::242]) (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 47198E0E2C for ; Tue, 25 Jul 2017 14:28:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-yw0-x242.google.com with SMTP id u207so3045974ywc.0 for ; Tue, 25 Jul 2017 07:28:07 -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:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=n9JS0i9rtp/73PXAmFMMzRCaXzXIPZ9XPXjXwu/eYvU=; b=kiKYyWL9kTdid/+2FwMwxBFgB/eXiBGQw7TTIXofNVygH5CSd2Fdl1vPLpWlpVtk3C aPzl3PR69f2rbumLRg9eti0SPsxaseLRXG+lDeaIAlbjDc640EFmHxHIsmO/KAVKu7KF wqHOSqKML/+yn4+ZffHEX5Yz4zWu7TGDnoLRlh2cigLHca2T0xLHdiWo7sukZjXOSD8U 1IMIieHfcuxyv0sgk3HS3tWMfHM1umjOlVM+c2O3580TtZnVvrzdV0SVQLmjAYXhPpjG v4RLX1YhUfAFVTVgK0FDtxha47MtBqCDQAm9HIvR1MUUm1lGR+bV9ax92vrTlG5dEGze 18LQ== 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:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=n9JS0i9rtp/73PXAmFMMzRCaXzXIPZ9XPXjXwu/eYvU=; b=oJHh3sPYirKfD5AkVXlz/ugOv1QNAWEd2AVkYC66Bo3B+vWfdtyCX12/QnV+o0F1P+ fwjkcBo/lpIBZ9oZnvBfP1QNcBmmyxcxIxa3GiwJWotazf6l9Q/sNeSzodoIrMEzwqjr 6WtN6WCbULmWIRuB9yOR8T5K9LCeVaXaZ0tXcjo4s+babwDQprAkLyPsKJP0C/fGgf94 T0Eay+DLdBllyhAyZ3TJ+hPSzSHP9ay5A2bUB/8hFlg+YpQIYSLKniU1L6biI68i9qab wENfB+yMuzfLmrCobl6uqXzxxUjPLmhYDAMabb0YxMQzEOEk/VEEyd+KkSCFMnIYVbkA QKCg== X-Gm-Message-State: AIVw112HqzxNtVZukiYIvWF4zJl6RmFtp7dqGc1ZqmLcrJz9iiwfHTCO Wr3z7DF62FmVoKwaIMFVaHiewG15tYtUiD0= X-Received: by 10.129.98.6 with SMTP id w6mr16245284ywb.29.1500992885886; Tue, 25 Jul 2017 07:28:05 -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 07:28:05 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <1500992029.795.17.camel@gentoo.org> References: <20170724222223.6d359e47@sf> <1500992029.795.17.camel@gentoo.org> From: Rich Freeman Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2017 10:28:05 -0400 X-Google-Sender-Auth: _ZRpMB8oZQVSXM7uWrS8CQXFSoo Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Future of gentoo's stable and unstable trees: what are your thoughts? To: =?UTF-8?B?TWljaGHFgiBHw7Nybnk=?= Cc: gentoo-dev , wg-stable@gentoo.org, arch-leads@gentoo.org, Gentoo alpha AT , Gentoo AMD64 AT , amd64-fbsd@gentoo.org, Gentoo arm AT , arm64@gentoo.org, Gentoo hppa AT , Gentoo ia64 AT , Gentoo m68k AT , Gentoo mips AT , Gentoo ppc AT , Gentoo ppc64 AT , Gentoo s390 AT , Gentoo sh AT , Gentoo sparc AT , Gentoo x86 AT , x86-fbsd@gentoo.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Archives-Salt: 1ecf5100-23bc-48b2-8034-caba51ce1f1a X-Archives-Hash: 238ca5d4c8b9bc296acba8b80dfbacf7 On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 10:13 AM, Micha=C5=82 G=C3=B3rny wrote: > > I feel like this is going towards 'anybody can do keywording / > stabilization'. I'd rather not go this route right now, and just let > arch teams recruit people as they see fit. > I think this depends on the arch team. Back in the early days of amd64 I was an AT and an early adopter in general. There were a lot of bugs with types/etc and broken assumptions. It was helpful to have a team that was familiar with the most common problems and which had the hardware to test things. Now we never see an amd64-specific issue because that is what all the upstream projects do their own QA using. If anything we'd be more likely to see x86 bugs, but most people have learned how to use types correctly/etc, and I suspect this has benefited other architectures as well. I saw an analogous situation with systemd. In the early days we were writing a lot of units. These days it is just dealing with one-offs as much of the work is now upstreamed. I think that the more mainstream something is, the less the need for specialized teams to deal with every issue. Sure, somebody could always escalate a sticky problem, but having an arch team do every stabilization seems like having the gcc team look at every build error. --=20 Rich