From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 49D9F138247 for ; Wed, 15 Jan 2014 08:03:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 4D072E0AEB; Wed, 15 Jan 2014 08:03:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5CD54E0ADD for ; Wed, 15 Jan 2014 08:03:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-pd0-f172.google.com (mail-pd0-f172.google.com [209.85.192.172]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: djc) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 95FD333F7C5 for ; Wed, 15 Jan 2014 08:03:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-pd0-f172.google.com with SMTP id z10so796922pdj.3 for ; Wed, 15 Jan 2014 00:03:30 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=mime-version:reply-to:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:content-type; bh=hrCOBKkZFL2LEjZH4MveJRm+Yy7pdq2PAcKOgFjywL4=; b=BJKQyobfNKVDpyIoRhAEAtTbFHj3UULghGffbUHk58NEvP3PvMpT0TJbu0MUizdvLa EyCbVkmUYsxexVr4Obhmg+omz4uPZf12jluUWNbwiSbgspn7zX0DmP+9QjvFV+JVPSwR oHV/cRfTNAmglPqwZE9MgbaruG4uhK44blwSBK5GhJUj8QGJrJHqpmeY0isySgfwzmMz RJ2PPanZYSyf+3vI1Jd7vRAfv4BP3UTSeV4vACxBzlA5JVpg7KfQ6twaLwLPjgNrsMUg 6n5Dq8Yq/vjzuG8IeqV8vMt6Nc5n1eFUHoOKWKlRFYmLlN/7bE61FYb82L5f/oNZCUfx IYXw== X-Received: by 10.68.236.9 with SMTP id uq9mr1099201pbc.10.1389773010636; Wed, 15 Jan 2014 00:03:30 -0800 (PST) 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 Received: by 10.70.93.39 with HTTP; Wed, 15 Jan 2014 00:03:10 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20140115044948.GA4345@laptop.home> References: <20140114213719.GA2684@laptop.home> <20140115044948.GA4345@laptop.home> From: Dirkjan Ochtman Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2014 09:03:10 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: revisiting our stabilization policy To: Gentoo Development Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Archives-Salt: 539a6d58-2e1f-478c-881e-59f0120fccfc X-Archives-Hash: 0ccf72f9c948b3d9d15f49a0c2376990 On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 5:49 AM, William Hubbs wrote: >> Also, there is a substantial number of packages which contain only python >> code (or perl, ruby), or only LaTeX classes, or only documentation. It >> makes no sense to test them on each arch separately. I think maintainers >> should be allowed to stabilize such packages (with no compiled code) on >> all arches. > > There is a reason we don't do this, back in Gentoo history somewhere, but I > don't remember what it was. > > If someone can tell us why this isn't allowed I am all ears. Otherwise, > I could agree on this point as well. Yeah, as the python team lead, I feel we could definitely stick some policy bits in (almost) all python packages that says stable for one arch means stable for all arches. Sure, there'd be some fallout, but I suspect that would be very limited, and in return only one arch tester (or the maintainer!) can stabilize for all architectures. Cheers, Dirkjan