From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gentoo-dev+bounces-64361-garchives=archives.gentoo.org@lists.gentoo.org>
Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80])
by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 49D9F138247
for <garchives@archives.gentoo.org>; 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 <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; 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 <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Wed, 15 Jan 2014 08:03:31 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-pd0-f172.google.com with SMTP id z10so796922pdj.3
for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; 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: <mailto:gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gentoo-dev+help@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+unsubscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+subscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail <gentoo-dev.gentoo.org>
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> <alpine.LFD.2.03.1401151045160.21922@star.inp.nsk.su>
<20140115044948.GA4345@laptop.home>
From: Dirkjan Ochtman <djc@gentoo.org>
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2014 09:03:10 +0100
Message-ID: <CAKmKYaBQMMRQAGrbGCXi6Ws_fex4Yuy-Mgda7L2TH2T4-0ceDA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: revisiting our stabilization policy
To: Gentoo Development <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>
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 <williamh@gentoo.org> 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