Re: [gentoo-project] Call for agenda items - Council meeting 2016-08-14

[William Hubbs <williamh@gentoo.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3689 bytes --]

On Thu, Aug 04, 2016 at 10:09:38AM -0700, Brian Dolbec wrote:
> On Thu, 4 Aug 2016 11:24:43 -0500
> William Hubbs <williamh@gentoo.org> wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, Aug 04, 2016 at 04:15:14PM +0200, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote:
> > > Dear all,
> > > 
> > > the Gentoo Council will meet again on Sunday, August 14 at 19:00 UTC
> > > in #gentoo-council on FreeNode.
> > > 
> > > 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.  
> > 
> > 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.
> > 
> > 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.
> > 
> > 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.
> > 
> > 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.
> > 
> > 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.
> > 
> > The second issue is slow arch teams. Again, by not moving packages
> > from ~ to stable, we are doing a disservice to our stable users.
> > 
> > I can think of two ways we can improve our situation.
> > 
> > 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.
> > 
> > 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).
> > 
> > What do folks think?
> > 
> > William
> > 
> 
> 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 <pallavagarwal07@gmail.com>
> Mentors: Sébastien Fabbro <bicatali@gentoo.org>
>          Nitin Agarwal <nitinagarwal3006@gmail.com>

As I said, automated stabilization is where we should go in the long
term, and I'm glad someone is working on that.

What I'm interested in in this thread mostly though is how we can adjust
our current policies so that more things get stabilized until we get
that automated system working.

In other words, I want us to start moving more things into stable asap
then the automated system can start when it is in place.

Thanks,

William


[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 181 bytes --]