Re: [gentoo-dev] robo-stable bugs

["Robin H. Johnson" <robbat2@gentoo.org>]

On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 05:29:43PM +0200, Tom Wijsman wrote:
> >     "<cat/pkg-version> stabilisation request"
> This is missing a reference URL or at least the ML thread subject; last
> time I asked, I didn't got either and wasn't able to find this in a
> reasonable amount of time. I find some irrelevant policy discussions
> but nothing that indicates the order in the summary.
http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/gentoo/dev/173889?do=post_view_threaded
The thread does mention that atoms should be first, as well.
It also makes sorting and viewing much easier (all related atoms are
together).

> Severity and Priority on the Gentoo Bugzilla have always been weird to
> me; I would love to hear from someone who is actually using either of
> those to sort their bugs and using them happily, because the
> inconsistency applied by different people is making a mess of them.
It would be nice if these could be better documented.

'enhancement' gets the most use from me for oldnet/openrc feature
requests.

> > Also, your script does not set the STABLEREQ keyword. People are
> > having to hunt down your robo-stabilisation requests and add it
> > themselves. You should just do it yourself or turn your script off.
> Maintainer(s) and arch team member(s) blamed me for setting this. :(
I think the keyword should be there.

If anybody else things the keyword should NOT be there, I'd like to hear
from them here.

Additionally, there used to be an old webapp where you could select by
dev/herd and see how many days every package with that dev/herd had been
in ~arch for all given arches. Something like that easily usable would
be handy again, as a stop-gap to automatic stabilization.


-- 
Robin Hugh Johnson
Gentoo Linux: Developer, Trustee & Infrastructure Lead
E-Mail     : robbat2@gentoo.org
GnuPG FP   : 11ACBA4F 4778E3F6 E4EDF38E B27B944E 34884E85