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 TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F3B9B13832E for ; Thu, 4 Aug 2016 17:09:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 81B43E09AF; Thu, 4 Aug 2016 17:09:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D7EE5E08C1 for ; Thu, 4 Aug 2016 17:09:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: from professor-x (S010634bdfa9ecf80.vc.shawcable.net [96.49.31.57]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: dolsen) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2612B340BEF for ; Thu, 4 Aug 2016 17:09:49 +0000 (UTC) Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2016 10:09:38 -0700 From: Brian Dolbec To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] Call for agenda items - Council meeting 2016-08-14 Message-ID: <20160804100938.0ac24bdc.dolsen@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <20160804162443.GA7048@whubbs1.gaikai.biz> References: <2e11e445-c25b-b7f2-def1-99aed92308b6@gentoo.org> <20160804162443.GA7048@whubbs1.gaikai.biz> Organization: Gentoo 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-sha512; boundary="Sig_/WFp4j4.cl_+r.7m1JJY/MWK"; protocol="application/pgp-signature" X-Archives-Salt: 764b46f6-c394-4bf4-9768-ebbddbca08c2 X-Archives-Hash: 892bd614122719804897aa4cf37f1f79 --Sig_/WFp4j4.cl_+r.7m1JJY/MWK Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, 4 Aug 2016 11:24:43 -0500 William Hubbs wrote: > On Thu, Aug 04, 2016 at 04:15:14PM +0200, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote: > > Dear all, > >=20 > > the Gentoo Council will meet again on Sunday, August 14 at 19:00 UTC > > in #gentoo-council on FreeNode. > >=20 > > Please reply to this message on the gentoo-project list with any > > items the council should put on its agenda to discuss or vote on. =20 >=20 > I feel that our stable tree is so far behind on all > architectures that we are doing our stable users a disservice, so I > would like to open up a discussion here, and maybe some policy changes > at the next meeting. >=20 > Ultimately, I think we need some form of automated stabilization, e.g. > if a package version sits in ~ for 30 days and there are no blockers > at that point, the new version should go automatically to stable on > all architectures where there is a previous stable version. >=20 > I realize that automation is going to take a lot of work, so in the > meantime, I would like to discuss changes to our stabilization > policies that will get new versions of packages to stable faster. >=20 > The first issue is maintainers not filing stable requests for new > versions of packages in a timely manor. I'm not sure how to get around > this, but I feel that once a version of a package is stable, we are > doing a disservice to our stable users by not keeping stable as > current as possible. I am as bad as anyone; it is easy to forget to > file stable requests until someone pings me or files the request > themselves. >=20 > I have heard other maintainers say specifically that they do not file > stable requests unless a user asks them to, but Again, I do not feel > comfortable with this arrangement if there is an old version of the > package in stable. Users shouldn't have to ask for newer versions to > be stabilized; this should be driven by the maintainers. >=20 > The second issue is slow arch teams. Again, by not moving packages > from ~ to stable, we are doing a disservice to our stable users. >=20 > I can think of two ways we can improve our situation. >=20 > We can allow maintainers to stabilize new versions of certain types of > packages on all arches where there is a previous version of the > package stable without filing stable requests. This would take a > significant load off of the arch teams. >=20 > For packages that do not fit the first group, we could require stable > requests, but allow maintainers to stabilize the new versions after a > timeout (I would propose 30 days). >=20 > What do folks think? >=20 > William >=20 William, there is a GSOC project underway that is creating an automated testing system as a helper and auto-stabilization system. You should read over the gentoo-soc list and/or talk to the mentors and student doing the project. student: Pallav Agarwal Mentors: S=C3=A9bastien Fabbro Nitin Agarwal --=20 Brian Dolbec --Sig_/WFp4j4.cl_+r.7m1JJY/MWK Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.1 iQJ8BAEBCgBmBQJXo3bSXxSAAAAAAC4AKGlzc3Vlci1mcHJAbm90YXRpb25zLm9w ZW5wZ3AuZmlmdGhob3JzZW1hbi5uZXRBNUQ3Qzc0RTA4MUNDNzBEQjRBNEFBRjVG QkJEMDg3Mjc1ODIwRUQ4AAoJEPu9CHJ1gg7YvEwQAKr0qBEHJOJBZA7elHGWOyGf luTUqJhbLbwApXiQ0otnfv/9mAdWq9pzHpv2VsUbEkbpCAGjwJ36tW6ecn7ySfGq qfoHFQWx6ofu5n/NlcyWLLuP+UsQ5D5+5exyyATax6OIFHPaxMQhzJKQeqdYDcvo VtRXmdctQCa1w7Z7vm5LNkQeM2DXbPOdzx5Ft9I+NOZKK2oRnFX27Pm6oCn7n6De 7vduTf3kyfpicIwUK7DrQZXaMmJxnVEsOG5aH7kTkEGpxRmTdbDIcoFQYFBm5Hi4 Z8zH06w6Uc8YhgXkBSju//PD5NV9rFcoVmxcJeuI1KFKRMPPvVWZC5JI12iijLC+ EF0jgCiX3yWeHMsbuQWq1c99buyXlQAMggbLeDRu2lgFBrkttRY9Ic+YBZkVHfaq W9T5pPHLkWIPEqoYgQjlXtfaNCbRuUL7AIZ1cAZdZeOb3IYS+YQs+LDZo+oREYiQ W1VGFB2jWUcyv0hp2uFTgZ42XZy7AW0KLux6PcaYQ6vF+mj4zU+mo8RiMYFUO1MC LlLX+FZZ0bQgbVLdMLYmgTvCpHyr391HdJ5j+hG4gzrZIFgKUFqF6DY7tOg9djqM B4+LO6p6jGD3iIvRWXiR7+v+nU5T3/G5S8fevHBo9Y1Xw0MRTVwo+2/T+DTsoY1j UDlan3+2sFn8VYGjPhWT =Tg1K -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Sig_/WFp4j4.cl_+r.7m1JJY/MWK--