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 97C9F13832E for ; Mon, 15 Aug 2016 19:27:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id F3BB621C06A; Mon, 15 Aug 2016 19:27:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-qt0-f177.google.com (mail-qt0-f177.google.com [209.85.216.177]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 21E8721C012 for ; Mon, 15 Aug 2016 19:27:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-qt0-f177.google.com with SMTP id w38so25524263qtb.0 for ; Mon, 15 Aug 2016 12:27:45 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to; bh=ykseKXkoI0lgCdQop+P5HTy+AjQ538uqU2D+eTzD69E=; b=hVQ6p7jJSIWBuPKWC7bcVaAVlTOS2nb4jxPHMQ6Eh9cWcoYDlipi9ksrJw03Pyonhl DjrnhTm+5z7oVJUAhxQQX6I7QOTPWFbod7Z1lYB2Itdx/gAIhLyMyPLfpRTdQWgROPyV S8kdnE8MpshXzmuYA4pY9w+rxKfKAnUaLnDJ0LEW6nnLDDSKHAEexOXTVJ/GCU091ior F18SEZ7o+xgIhbiCbE1Z9u+18smTtSBDWVeGoRQxjDLoYyQ5zqOBYQzj0KV/cEz5IA32 Vu7YDZASkgn3jsaiWxaeGWkgXmAnE4Khi60Qp3HP/eysM5JniEselXv3+073qXZLgFIu Morw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject:to; bh=ykseKXkoI0lgCdQop+P5HTy+AjQ538uqU2D+eTzD69E=; b=ZTXTdym7Xu7NQzNC8yev2BgOeFWmHZLw2O2wTvw9+ggoDgi1BHMnq7xWlK9Ibqu+fA LJvBMqNm2COoe6b4QGTEHDFrQfjTtiRgYNBr+Yx8Piiukwp82JOl4+X4z3cBbm92dK3A IfHs+A2PcQMr+CW19wcar7z+lyc2zOtUwtI6iFN3piBrKoL/Lsw7VJ8DPviqzifebKBg NRV4aW4xAMQi8+RRjjV3U7uDqcdD7lL/Z/GYh4q8PD7CQYOcLJbVn1vAs9ovdhboxeWu Pa4Dz0rKbf1vDnuF0eL4yzov3CchqzFPcRKpqSXvV0B6GMj1NgMKbQQjp52d95CNljFA PewQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AEkoouuGpeTpBh+4NlEADpJVbhDWQOfINy93xVZmqes/IuP/U1jSPn44m0dNXnYNCTZM5wLpmdvtrvQANklACw== X-Received: by 10.237.47.225 with SMTP id m88mr35108108qtd.106.1471289264908; Mon, 15 Aug 2016 12:27:44 -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 10.140.40.36 with HTTP; Mon, 15 Aug 2016 12:27:43 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20160815191248.GA21981@whubbs1.gaikai.biz> References: <6046d13b-1a54-aa5e-ab16-df448b0f8c59@gentoo.org> <1471248012.31785.32.camel@gentoo.org> <20160815141922.GA3878@linux1.gaikai.biz> <1bff7eb3-cc91-bba7-1f7f-9e7f76906df3@gentoo.org> <20160815161241.GA21389@whubbs1.gaikai.biz> <20160815173130.GA21750@whubbs1.gaikai.biz> <20160815191248.GA21981@whubbs1.gaikai.biz> From: Rich Freeman Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2016 15:27:43 -0400 X-Google-Sender-Auth: TAHLF0_kSEEQbdYfsziiu8xgSd8 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] New Working Group established to evaluate the stable tree To: gentoo-dev , Richard Freeman Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Archives-Salt: 9cd0a50c-f6a4-4580-a60e-02683da9f3f7 X-Archives-Hash: 0c8b335ca7c7b5a9d673cb25c6d96ae6 On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 3:12 PM, William Hubbs wrote: > On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 02:33:52PM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote: >> I'd rather see maintainers just yank the last stable package and break >> the depgraph and let the arch teams deal with the cleanup than have >> them mark stuff stable without any testing at all. Or build a script >> that does the keyword cleanup for them. De-keywording late stable >> requests is a solution that is self-correcting. As packages are >> reduced from the stable set then there are fewer stable requests and >> the arch team is better able to focus on the ones they deem important. >> Throwing more packages in stable that aren't actually stable just >> makes that problem worse, and destroys whatever value the stable >> keyword had on the arch. For small arch teams they really should be >> focusing their time on core packages. > > Rich, This was my original thinking about this issue. It turned out to > be more controversial than I originally thought -- folks told me that > stable tree users expect stability above all, so breaking the depgraph > is unacceptable, so I'm just trying to find something that is more > palletable. > Well, I wasn't suggesting that breaking the depgraph is great. Just that I think it is better than calling things stable which aren't. A better approach is a script that does the keyword cleanup. So, if you want to reap an ebuild you run "destabilize foo-1.2.ebuild". It searches the tree for all reverse deps and removes stable keywords from those. Then you commit all of that in one commit. If you want to be extra nice you stick it in a pull request in github and point it out to the arch team and ask them if they're sure they don't want to stabilize your package... :) -- Rich