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 1323A138A6C for ; Wed, 8 Apr 2015 11:51:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 08DE4E0985; Wed, 8 Apr 2015 11:51:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-ob0-f171.google.com (mail-ob0-f171.google.com [209.85.214.171]) (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 659AEE0963 for ; Wed, 8 Apr 2015 11:51:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: by oblw8 with SMTP id w8so82707616obl.0 for ; Wed, 08 Apr 2015 04:51:18 -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=1O19+YW9uKojxPy7qFnPl6/wP1jWnGx8MO/yE89gvKo=; b=PXt7ajJ2MEIc2GHe8k37fREiA57Pv4R9NhJHtedLd0jRBg4I7+D1SHHCPIdAHbJ234 w+Be5/1mtmVknTqN9kKLup5v+2ACz79wF3U4LnUqWUO/Bai6lcArbUIznLSlmt1ZfNhz HnTAydUw3dajI+yYpn7dv1H2dBxNRBiA0koHJR75nEdhKp1R4IXvxeHxSsYyYfGWaWpW BTSraiCPjYlQwbfDOWtxRaar/PH57Ilt8coUgClU46n9P29TqyIBnfNCJqyBEBOyEf/+ SD/je1jIgpiIEAVxHCnGkDuMt3foOE94CbqGSS408fe/t43llJ1d4MuQKpCF3H7NgX7W QftQ== X-Received: by 10.60.220.137 with SMTP id pw9mr20558213oec.47.1428493878051; Wed, 08 Apr 2015 04:51:18 -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 wc6sm8589045obc.8.2015.04.08.04.51.17 for (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 08 Apr 2015 04:51:17 -0700 (PDT) Sender: William Hubbs Received: (nullmailer pid 6280 invoked by uid 1000); Wed, 08 Apr 2015 11:51:16 -0000 Date: Wed, 8 Apr 2015 06:51:16 -0500 From: William Hubbs To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Council meeting 2015-04-14: call for agenda items Message-ID: <20150408115116.GA6220@linux1> Mail-Followup-To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org References: <20150405195044.GA2917@linux1> <20150406002706.4aff7e4dda27a25a5c106b50@gentoo.org> <5521BF9C.5060809@gentoo.org> <1428353540.2041.11.camel@gentoo.org> <55246753.5060902@gentoo.org> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Project discussion list 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="wRRV7LY7NUeQGEoC" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) X-Archives-Salt: dc610301-4f7a-4de5-9a7f-255873dadecc X-Archives-Hash: 58b11b9bcf2e8deaac00761facd3e2b3 --wRRV7LY7NUeQGEoC Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, Apr 07, 2015 at 07:29:31PM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Tue, Apr 7, 2015 at 7:25 PM, Anthony G. Basile w= rote: > > On 04/07/15 11:38, Michael Palimaka wrote: > >> > >> On 07/04/15 08:22, Matt Turner wrote: > >>> > >>> On Mon, Apr 6, 2015 at 1:52 PM, Pacho Ramos wrote: > >>>> > >>>> For instance, in this topic I haven't seen any comment from > >>>> alpha/ia64/sparc arch teams... > >>> > >>> I haven't commented because I don't honestly believe people care. > >>> > >>> I'm really disappointed that the discussion is entirely about creating > >>> keyword-dropping policies and no one is asking whether there are > >>> things we can do to make keyword/stable requests a more streamlined > >>> process. But, that kind of thing seems to be par for the course on > >>> this list. > >> > >> We've heard very little from arch teams at all, let alone proposals for > >> improving the stabilisation process. That's the main reason this sort = of > >> topic keeps coming up. > > > > I don't want my silence to be misinterpreted regarding ppc and ppc64. = For > > those arches, I'm willing to trim back on stabilization, but I really d= on't > > want to drop to ~ as we did for mips. In fact, I'm thinking of turning= mips > > itself back into a stable arches with just the @system packages being > > candidates for stabilization. The reason I like this approach is when I > > build stage3's I can control what I know will build (stable packages) v= s the > > latest packages added to the tree (~arch). Nothing is more painful than > > have to manually intervene in a bunch of catalyst builds. Being able to > > control what will be built via stable keywords saves time and effort. > > >=20 > Would you be willing to monitor stablereqs and for ones that you can't > keep up with, go ahead and remove stable keywords proactively on your > own? The main concern is that this is a lot of hassle for > maintainers. If the arch team can keep up with maintainers either by > stabilizing packages or unstabilizing them, I think that will satisfy > everybody. >=20 > Alternatively, we can just change the status of the arch in repoman. > Then you can keep your stable keywords if you wish, but package > maintainers can also break your stable depgraph. Changing the status of the arches in repoman is all I thought we were discussing. I wasn't saying we should revert or remove stable keywords for them. I think that's what vapier is doing with s390, sh, etc. Marking the arches dev or exp in the profiles means that repoman, by default, doesn't complain about broken depgraphs for them. --wRRV7LY7NUeQGEoC Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iEYEARECAAYFAlUlFjQACgkQblQW9DDEZTg5sQCfQU/pBGHnk6j+lQ7Sjt6l2tFQ 2o8AmgI8HHQ16fSfvP97uMYXeIOp8xr2 =D4wT -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --wRRV7LY7NUeQGEoC--