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 TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BB35415800A for ; Sun, 16 Jul 2023 18:11:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 329FAE0894; Sun, 16 Jul 2023 18:11:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (woodpecker.gentoo.org [IPv6:2001:470:ea4a:1:5054:ff:fec7:86e4]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F106CE0875 for ; Sun, 16 Jul 2023 18:11:19 +0000 (UTC) From: Ulrich Mueller To: Arthur Zamarin Cc: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org, Matt Turner , Sam James , Tim Harder Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Package stabilization groups In-Reply-To: <19edc9b0-6f85-cd19-48ed-d2b7152d256a@gentoo.org> (Arthur Zamarin's message of "Sun, 16 Jul 2023 21:04:35 +0300") References: <19edc9b0-6f85-cd19-48ed-d2b7152d256a@gentoo.org> Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2023 20:11:13 +0200 Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.3 (gnu/linux) 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 X-Auto-Response-Suppress: DR, RN, NRN, OOF, AutoReply MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature" X-Archives-Salt: 60a82bd5-2f4c-41f5-9375-3bffb0afcfc8 X-Archives-Hash: ef0c758be5e206790ad18fb22dc51b34 --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain >>>>> On Sun, 16 Jul 2023, Arthur Zamarin wrote: > Let me list some things as advantages to each one (since I see an > advantage to one as disadvantage to other). > Advantages of field in metadata.xml: > - local to package, easier to not miss. Easier to follow for the maintainer. > - easier to find which group the current package relates to > Advantages to group files: > - easier to index (one file listing all children, instead of searching > across repo who defines it) > - easier to not repeat group. In the metadata field it might happen to > repeat, less likely since it is easy to search, but similar group names > might be created, merging them into one by mistake, or creating very > similar names and mistaking them. When we have a single file, it is > easier to see the whole picture and verify things. > - since this is compressed information (special files instead of spread > over repo), we could load all of them into app's cache, and make all > computation easier. > - enables an easier syntax as `pkgdev bugs @group1` to file a single bug > for all of them. In Gnome's case as an example, we could have "gnome1", > "gnome2", "gnome3", "gnome4", etc - groups standing for multiple > "layers/stages" of stabilizing, and then you could just file `pkgdev > bugs @gnome{1..4}` to file "at one click" the whole gnome stablereqs. Can't we do the same that we do for local use flags? Namely, define them in metadata.xml, but collect them in one central location? Ulrich --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQFDBAEBCAAtFiEEtDnZ1O9xIP68rzDbUYgzUIhBXi4FAmS0MsEPHHVsbUBnZW50 b28ub3JnAAoJEFGIM1CIQV4uuE0H/jw4oN0WLcG5euioQezIFkw2Ep07RWmGqZTy gtbXLKnw1ePh+tNPnJ0bKpTzW0SiPsroumo3BDhhj8vZC/QPjML1rYwFjbLdmxqr x7hklYL+3+9k2fDskD3EV0VwHyR4+3hh855ZFIWA+Q7JQ1sQzHE7pu3iL9Ajx+fm VOChT3ihWYl6HqfQdpeRok35K6mdq/wtsbycdcTg7dH6E42ViyvUle+1VrkwbMt+ GINQmq3RMxUJRrICshbFOCtFnYHkokeOuWNDUVSCG++tTz/ne9PTDe3qRiG7DF9q MZRQ55BldSc4P4Jhth8tOGj6BsMc6eagJiYKiA3bvExe3t4dCOM= =vak8 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=--