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

[Rich Freeman <rich0@gentoo.org>]

On Sun, Apr 5, 2015 at 5:27 PM, Andrew Savchenko <bircoph@gentoo.org> 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 would prefer to get at a more generic policy that can be applied
everywhere, and not just arch by arch.  Being able to keep up or not
isn't really a black/white thing.  Or rather, if it is I think it is
more a case that nobody can keep up.  I think that it would be better
to have one policy that makes sense on any arch, and as you point out
it probably won't tend to get applied much to amd64/x86 simply because
they are better supported.

-- 
Rich