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 A63F0139694 for ; Tue, 25 Jul 2017 20:12:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 62BF21FC016; Tue, 25 Jul 2017 20:12:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-yw0-x244.google.com (mail-yw0-x244.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c05::244]) (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 1974D1FC002 for ; Tue, 25 Jul 2017 20:12:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-yw0-x244.google.com with SMTP id u207so3527356ywc.0 for ; Tue, 25 Jul 2017 13:12:09 -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=c2eKPw2MnpYQ9n5oOuQr80OiBnlC7LA/EEQHNay4gNs=; b=YoYn5+inrf7KTpMra/Fe9oPNjeY/0dTdt2HJbdhmB8JLtOGAYEDZYWRtTHmpBoKKo6 xW4ct6PHqo3nwTZyjyFHIJ2qz2c2d8ARnEZsEUUvS4L33iLN+HCsjwFAx6VFg2sOIrus +rfRwGm3X9VnoJH9hUqET0aF+y/pEZoj504QlQtn9o78OjHnq/BZbygmtvb05QNArYW0 gavwZjU38hK/KP8WMsYj4iREFB7yWtck/Rq9crh5zUm5hby2dEcxd9RmpQhhdAJF81pZ s55W88akdgXSKROVinB2iykpzAYs0BASGJHKClHCQKg7/SXpK9IjLrK2LBUWYZP5vd96 4jOw== 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=c2eKPw2MnpYQ9n5oOuQr80OiBnlC7LA/EEQHNay4gNs=; b=KiZjJSmQaVa68DMTkjG9JT5u/WqcF6/Es28vXaDcIp6B7QWwlljrJW5y1/3c7cfMyV 1exnC3saspL30YzPniQPMBiSvumj/yFwAPM/RDz2fkQVWmMvES+Y5RgAxF2ib8YY7Lu0 ctlCyhFgBzm/zGOl0RmPXbD4pNOVNNhIh+JvXAI5+9rEiMMKp/DE8LeZjqLGxioImMBe TJ4NZRcITo2Y3HX9SjBj91Pn+EzGMi/ZELfiG8tWuzp8auhBBhJLwHbDearJPM1cKY3H oYGYsm+8v9jIgS7/wIg0waDXjv7qRPNJpBiYpq7o1FtSaT0CNL1jH1eryztOCVq59yDu thSA== X-Gm-Message-State: AIVw112zIwEjk/AxoGhlfsxkhSkOQCgVZT8jlTC5aE50WFfWT4CT9U1i T2wVH1S4nvdH3tVB5okgVeV+rxFXWXM+kWg= X-Received: by 10.37.192.88 with SMTP id c85mr7772777ybf.154.1501013528356; Tue, 25 Jul 2017 13:12:08 -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 13:12:07 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20170725214511.7201f900@dell-xps13.lan> References: <20170724222223.6d359e47@sf> <2277691.IQrrNmuQfn@wanheda> <20170725214511.7201f900@dell-xps13.lan> From: Rich Freeman Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2017 16:12:07 -0400 X-Google-Sender-Auth: P6UARYk5eT-1EQgqjaz5bxWxB8Q 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: 05189616-205b-4fb8-82cd-00bc398eb99f X-Archives-Hash: f393359b2a981cd79b90b3b3f3e07076 On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 3:45 PM, Markus Meier wrote: > On Tue, 25 Jul 2017 11:03:30 +0200 > Agostino Sarubbo wrote: > >> On Monday 24 July 2017 22:22:23 Sergei Trofimovich wrote: >> > 1. lack of automation >> I'd summarize the techical steps into: >> 1) get the list of packages >> 2) test >> 3) commit to git >> 4) write on bugzilla >> >> 1 is done by getatoms https://github.com/kensington/bugbot >> 2 is done by the tester in the manner he prefer >> 3 no official tool available, I used a modified version of >> https://gitweb.gentoo.org/proj/arch-tools.git/tree/batch-stabilize.py >> which is still based on CVS >> 4 no official tool available, I used my own bash script which calls >> pybugz >> >> So, points 3 and 4 needs to be improved, I have the idea on how the >> script should look, but I have no time to do it and no python >> knowledge. I can assist everyone that candidate itself to make the >> tool/script like I did with kensington when he made getatoms. > > for 3 and 4 there's the keyword.sh script in my overlay (under scripts) > that has been working for ages (at least for me)... > It is a slightly different process, but there is also the situation where an arch is slow to respond to a stablereq and the maintainer wishes to drop keywords. In that case a script is needed which will remove stable keywords on all reverse deps of the package. Back when the council approved dropping keywords in these situations it seemed to be that the effort required to do so was the main barrier to maintainers taking advantage of the policy. Awareness might be another issue, as I don't think it really got documented outside of the summaries. -- Rich