Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Council meeting 2015-04-14: call for agenda items

["Anthony G. Basile" <blueness@gentoo.org>]

On 04/07/15 19:29, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 7, 2015 at 7:25 PM, Anthony G. Basile <blueness@gentoo.org> wrote:
>> 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 <pacho@gentoo.org> 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 don'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) vs 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.
>>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>

We had a couple of ideas in this direction.  One is a "weak" 
stabilization criterion for ppc/ppc64.  If the package builds for amd64, 
go ahead and mark ppc/ppc64 stable as well.  This is bound to hit 
problems but we'll catch them after the fact.  Another idea was to 
generate a list of packages we want to target as stable on ppc/ppc64 and 
drop stable keywords on all but those packages, then continue as we do 
now.  Your idea Rich is actually a variation on this in that we can just 
unstabilize as we go along rather than generating the list and doing it 
all at once.  That might be workable.

What's holding me back right now is that when the ppc/ppc64 team met 
last year we said we were going to keep going as we have been.  I'm 
hoping ppc/ppc64 can meet again soon and readdress this issue.

-- 
Anthony G. Basile, Ph.D.
Gentoo Linux Developer [Hardened]
E-Mail    : blueness@gentoo.org
GnuPG FP  : 1FED FAD9 D82C 52A5 3BAB  DC79 9384 FA6E F52D 4BBA
GnuPG ID  : F52D4BBA