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 D1535138A6C for ; Sun, 5 Apr 2015 23:09:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 41603E0950; Sun, 5 Apr 2015 23:09:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B92A2E0941 for ; Sun, 5 Apr 2015 23:09:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.1.9] (unknown [124.79.51.52]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: patrick) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E6C80340AC1 for ; Sun, 5 Apr 2015 23:09:16 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <5521BF9C.5060809@gentoo.org> Date: Mon, 06 Apr 2015 07:05:00 +0800 From: Patrick Lauer User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.4.0 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 To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Council meeting 2015-04-14: call for agenda items References: <20150402141428.GA31638@oregano.home.lan> <201504032214.01310.dilfridge@gentoo.org> <20150404220205.GA415@linux1> <1428237147.22472.1.camel@gentoo.org> <20150405195044.GA2917@linux1> <20150406002706.4aff7e4dda27a25a5c106b50@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 6d9af704-8d25-4ce4-a3ed-4c81c274c12f X-Archives-Hash: e4daacde47a7f634688233afc446ac35 On 04/06/15 06:54, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Sun, Apr 5, 2015 at 5:27 PM, Andrew Savchenko wrote: >> >> 2. Otherwise allow developers to drop stable keywords from affected >> package and _all_ its reverse dependencies. This way a part of >> stable tree will be removed, but only a part. With this approach >> arch teams will be freed of an extra burden, while they will be >> still able to maintain a smaller stable tree. >> >> This is a win-win solution: a stable tree will be still kept in a >> maintainable size and developers will not have a long-term blockers >> on their stabilization requests. >> >> 3. And last but not the least: apply the rules above to all arches, >> not just minor teams (though probability that amd64/x86 will be >> slow is lower, of course). >> > > This was some of what I was getting at. My question still stands that > I'm not sure arch teams REALLY want 300 packages to have their stable > keywords removed instead of just having one package break the > depgraph. When we move to git then this won't be as big a deal, as > they could easily undo all the keywords in the same commit that fixes > the original STABLEREQ. I strongly prefer removing stable keywords of all reverse dependencies over random 'transient' breakage that won't be fixed in a reasonable timeframe (we're starting from the assumption that the relevant arch team didn't respond in *months* ...) How git is relevant I don't really see, you'd still have to re-test all involved packages, so the effort is mostly in testing and not in running ekeyword in a loop. Have fun, Patrick