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 66622138B5C for ; Sun, 5 Apr 2015 22:54:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id E4725E09E6; Sun, 5 Apr 2015 22:54:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-ig0-f176.google.com (mail-ig0-f176.google.com [209.85.213.176]) (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 7C279E086D for ; Sun, 5 Apr 2015 22:54:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: by igblo3 with SMTP id lo3so9765734igb.0 for ; Sun, 05 Apr 2015 15:54:11 -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; bh=tfnfxkLUCJ8vVp8PsNJSjy1v4eP2jydpqAuJ+dmBJ+U=; b=LsWZqkGeCQWabitHGa+KJQyYOvxTCevui2j5O9TSHn4gqxpbYrQNaTFfysGx7+vjVU wJTjD4lJp8ffENXuSzGkCKzMxhGew4HVZTfNS+6NStDEYHZR2EizUFRGtQh+nhSGNYb6 YYkHrEsFzD3juN9LgxuXMbb1VVeDOBQ2T74cnN0+4XLbibs9NRp3gd+uIvRzXtXlJnf3 hnKuFE9S8q32NYrqKc+ACW0GpI5rQtbe6cevp2PQDJCA3nKgcb3V8prPyhKyi9rCGonh kyFYrwapbuPcLWzmNDFcK1rzrq8g9mXZwl8gvD5EPCN4fobFjCR19lMLO/A+uKyQwYMo k9pg== 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 X-Received: by 10.50.107.36 with SMTP id gz4mr19221430igb.25.1428274450850; Sun, 05 Apr 2015 15:54:10 -0700 (PDT) Sender: freemanrich@gmail.com Received: by 10.107.48.198 with HTTP; Sun, 5 Apr 2015 15:54:10 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20150406002706.4aff7e4dda27a25a5c106b50@gentoo.org> 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> Date: Sun, 5 Apr 2015 18:54:10 -0400 X-Google-Sender-Auth: tlMXBFJ6UYAnFKDzY-e5oFdYvok Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Council meeting 2015-04-14: call for agenda items From: Rich Freeman To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Archives-Salt: 076da955-3833-40c2-85e3-d38c7736cef4 X-Archives-Hash: fd0c0aef7136246801df1f27ce306c4c 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 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