From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gentoo-project+bounces-4466-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 CF44C1389F5
for <garchives@archives.gentoo.org>; Sat, 4 Apr 2015 22:02:10 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 8D6FFE0A95;
Sat, 4 Apr 2015 22:02:08 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mail-ob0-f175.google.com (mail-ob0-f175.google.com [209.85.214.175])
(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 08B07E09BD
for <gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org>; Sat, 4 Apr 2015 22:02:07 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by obbfy7 with SMTP id fy7so767676obb.2
for <gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org>; Sat, 04 Apr 2015 15:02:07 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
h=sender:date:from:to:subject:message-id:mail-followup-to:references
:mime-version:content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to
:user-agent;
bh=W3iRjNT5+QjuZ5zHu4w1EiGIlhnjWdMnUONGJagCoPM=;
b=NegswaPRCuThzQe3KbQywOzJm3oTsYbLL5x8FgdmclIVFrrSYT+6t6MjDG3GUSVt0C
C6mlYYp5svS9Yp9pBA5bbsjhsERTofo2P4BRHXeiVKYIeLJQFMZBiMzJdEkC9ah8YlTG
AFGSetv4NAP9y51l6ccgMeJZI7sxyUdGtbr5+Ps/v/x9ifWFHFLryeaO1rLFyAfsJ0Aj
AH2WBf+s7Xqvvt20RomN7l6KOfN0FINCeBFYNi5/rLwShlRUch0zjJXYFRXRyuhH2CYm
3zhDeNnjvh6c2ph6Sbs/5kmIC0DVpCgnjo86APg9bhJ9UvJgmy/n1HKnIRFaulRJA6Ge
6x1A==
X-Received: by 10.182.106.225 with SMTP id gx1mr10166681obb.33.1428184927053;
Sat, 04 Apr 2015 15:02:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from linux1 (cpe-76-187-91-128.tx.res.rr.com. [76.187.91.128])
by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id c3sm325363obq.4.2015.04.04.15.02.06
for <gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org>
(version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128);
Sat, 04 Apr 2015 15:02:06 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: William Hubbs <w.d.hubbs@gmail.com>
Received: (nullmailer pid 563 invoked by uid 1000);
Sat, 04 Apr 2015 22:02:05 -0000
Date: Sat, 4 Apr 2015 17:02:05 -0500
From: William Hubbs <williamh@gentoo.org>
To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org
Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Council meeting 2015-04-14: call for agenda
items
Message-ID: <20150404220205.GA415@linux1>
Mail-Followup-To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org
References: <20150402141428.GA31638@oregano.home.lan>
<mfmpto$cis$1@ger.gmane.org>
<CAGfcS_noUvSEcE2B9VnofS2rC0oL7WkUFk1KMYe40-_tu+trqQ@mail.gmail.com>
<201504032214.01310.dilfridge@gentoo.org>
<mfosjp$17v$1@ger.gmane.org>
<CAGfcS_=+emORt-zvLjX2vg5b6nJ0f_nnEYM20C=bB7=uL+jZ4Q@mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk
List-Post: <mailto:gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gentoo-project+help@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gentoo-project+unsubscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gentoo-project+subscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Id: Gentoo Project discussion list <gentoo-project.gentoo.org>
X-BeenThere: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org
Reply-To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;
protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="qMm9M+Fa2AknHoGS"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAGfcS_=+emORt-zvLjX2vg5b6nJ0f_nnEYM20C=bB7=uL+jZ4Q@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
X-Archives-Salt: 7160691e-44bf-4b2d-85d3-3c3d24b2e440
X-Archives-Hash: 19025bfe29767c9243127f100d14728a
--qMm9M+Fa2AknHoGS
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Sat, Apr 04, 2015 at 11:13:54AM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 4, 2015 at 10:31 AM, Michael Palimaka <kensington@gentoo.org>=
wrote:
> > On 04/04/15 07:13, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
> >> Am Freitag, 3. April 2015, 22:01:32 schrieb Rich Freeman:
> >>
> >>> For reference, the policy we came up with last time for ia64 and alph=
a only was:
> >>
> >>> "If a maintainer has an open STABLEREQ, or a KEYWORDREQ blocking a
> >>> pending STABLEREQ, for 90 days with archs CCed and otherwise ready
> >>> to be stabilized, the maintainer can remove older stable versions of
> >>> the package at their discretion. A package is considered ready to be
> >>> stabilized if it has been in the tree for 30 days, and has no known
> >>> major flaws on arches that upstream considers supported."
> >>
> >> If we're bringing this up again, we should maybe also clarify it. My u=
nderstanding at the time was that the removal of older stable versions may =
leave the deptree of the arch in question in a broken state, however bad th=
at is. There seem to be different interpretations though.
> >
> > I am against breaking the deptree for any arch that has a stable
> > profile. It's reasonable to expect devs to dekeyword revdeps to ensure
> > the deptree is consistent.
> > If the state of the arch really is that bad, its profiles should be
> > switched to dev or exp to reflect reality.
> >
>=20
> Tend to agree, but be careful what you ask for. Which would the arch
> team REALLY prefer after ignoring a bug for 90 days? The stable
> depgraph is broken and they have to hurry and stabilize one package to
> fix it, OR the stable depgraph is fine, but suddenly 300 packages no
> longer have stable keywords at all. Fixing the latter would be a
> royal PITA without git. Getting rid of stable on those 300 packages
> is also a lot of work for the package maintainer without some kind of
> tool to automate this.
I agree. I think the temporary stable depgraph breakage is the lesser of
the two evils in this case. Also, I would add that, once an arch team
starts getting hit with enough deptree breakage they should be able to
make the decision to revert their profiles to dev or exp without council
intervention.
William
--qMm9M+Fa2AknHoGS
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2
iEYEARECAAYFAlUgX10ACgkQblQW9DDEZThkDACgnY+GlAevxYxxQhFdi68sdS0x
IdgAn3lJYLWgbECjQt7Xk2DmcEMfuefw
=93+9
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--qMm9M+Fa2AknHoGS--