From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gentoo-project+bounces-4463-garchives=archives.gentoo.org@lists.gentoo.org>
Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80])
by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D6C781389F5
for <garchives@archives.gentoo.org>; Sat, 4 Apr 2015 15:13:57 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 6EA22E08DD;
Sat, 4 Apr 2015 15:13:55 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mail-ig0-f181.google.com (mail-ig0-f181.google.com [209.85.213.181])
(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 E3702E08CE
for <gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org>; Sat, 4 Apr 2015 15:13:54 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by igblo3 with SMTP id lo3so24346449igb.0
for <gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org>; Sat, 04 Apr 2015 08:13:54 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject
:from:to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding;
bh=vx7jzXQrmWIas4hdv9XSpJA8cnOUqsgECm1a22hv4pI=;
b=XJwo+ip3KwDMVD12ieeFneONEIoSplA2srvS3SRrv+tlwX3TUDt5Gw1V4IZGAXhIKR
wc6QIk+rk6OJiM+9gouUCHvCkww5kTiiok4CGz2zyEVIa9u2nP6nLiLWeG6tdgzn3u8U
PeCEk79Hq2P41oM0zSc0LcFLiYqJb3+N/pP+/tL4e8SoMBwa/EbLb4Um7oiMR5SWtYxx
ENVaVbTHLE33SqmSiWP/xV9M5+A7mZK+lDzE9mfYVZWadJfmZBd+ZbSxuynSykrmBPlb
3EubRPkXThzabKQnJbltEQjCcl7o+R9njDthWUCBuW6hnfjDg5XWi7SPuVxLgPFmAA6e
PXbA==
Precedence: bulk
List-Post: <mailto:gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gentoo-project+help@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gentoo-project+unsubscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gentoo-project+subscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Id: Gentoo Project discussion list <gentoo-project.gentoo.org>
X-BeenThere: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org
Reply-To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.107.38.17 with SMTP id m17mr10581026iom.84.1428160434178;
Sat, 04 Apr 2015 08:13:54 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: freemanrich@gmail.com
Received: by 10.107.48.198 with HTTP; Sat, 4 Apr 2015 08:13:54 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <mfosjp$17v$1@ger.gmane.org>
References: <20150402141428.GA31638@oregano.home.lan>
<mfmpto$cis$1@ger.gmane.org>
<CAGfcS_noUvSEcE2B9VnofS2rC0oL7WkUFk1KMYe40-_tu+trqQ@mail.gmail.com>
<201504032214.01310.dilfridge@gentoo.org>
<mfosjp$17v$1@ger.gmane.org>
Date: Sat, 4 Apr 2015 11:13:54 -0400
X-Google-Sender-Auth: WcfRcBbBF7Bn0pJhhx1jbpYNOew
Message-ID: <CAGfcS_=+emORt-zvLjX2vg5b6nJ0f_nnEYM20C=bB7=uL+jZ4Q@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Council meeting 2015-04-14: call for agenda items
From: Rich Freeman <rich0@gentoo.org>
To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Archives-Salt: de79bcb4-22b4-47cc-9f43-07e93cf3db11
X-Archives-Hash: 2a6e0f6cad9bad5156b96bb55dd3a4d8
On Sat, Apr 4, 2015 at 10:31 AM, Michael Palimaka <kensington@gentoo.org> w=
rote:
> On 04/04/15 07:13, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
>> Am Freitag, 3. April 2015, 22:01:32 schrieb Rich Freeman:
>>
>>> For reference, the policy we came up with last time for ia64 and alpha =
only was:
>>
>>> "If a maintainer has an open STABLEREQ, or a KEYWORDREQ blocking a
>>> pending STABLEREQ, for 90 days with archs CCed and otherwise ready
>>> to be stabilized, the maintainer can remove older stable versions of
>>> the package at their discretion. A package is considered ready to be
>>> stabilized if it has been in the tree for 30 days, and has no known
>>> major flaws on arches that upstream considers supported."
>>
>> If we're bringing this up again, we should maybe also clarify it. My und=
erstanding at the time was that the removal of older stable versions may le=
ave the deptree of the arch in question in a broken state, however bad that=
is. There seem to be different interpretations though.
>
> I am against breaking the deptree for any arch that has a stable
> profile. It's reasonable to expect devs to dekeyword revdeps to ensure
> the deptree is consistent.
> If the state of the arch really is that bad, its profiles should be
> switched to dev or exp to reflect reality.
>
Tend to agree, but be careful what you ask for. Which would the arch
team REALLY prefer after ignoring a bug for 90 days? The stable
depgraph is broken and they have to hurry and stabilize one package to
fix it, OR the stable depgraph is fine, but suddenly 300 packages no
longer have stable keywords at all. Fixing the latter would be a
royal PITA without git. Getting rid of stable on those 300 packages
is also a lot of work for the package maintainer without some kind of
tool to automate this.
--=20
Rich