From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C6EA213832E for ; Fri, 5 Aug 2016 10:58:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 1005BE07F5; Fri, 5 Aug 2016 10:58:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-qk0-f179.google.com (mail-qk0-f179.google.com [209.85.220.179]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3B400E07EB for ; Fri, 5 Aug 2016 10:58:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-qk0-f179.google.com with SMTP id v123so126493609qkh.3 for ; Fri, 05 Aug 2016 03:58:01 -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:from:date:message-id :subject:to; bh=TlNbm7lnxp9Cto/GhJvV/hAKrtoV+KkRzcCX1RAUI44=; b=CmRLAlzn5qt+QZvor+yA1tpk5VAJC3hk8eVca3E2BLQakiFXU12rmMAQSzbbJ/PMZO VACVY4XOEaJGe0BWYFBZ76XfAd3GKcemBFonbuYSVYZ9uSG6WGFOpq4OqyG0pg2Rb+Tw wm9oFg9j1KlIZb2gpqNVZuKufKuJR3q4PB42XN+S52mOxN0MSw9OUJgh2fmC6JKs0HlE i5+uFEPGQ4Gr7kXILz0vWp2f8Oa6izm5vbSt1FeCxe8RpzsFDLCKfNMAStzgKH6TL31c F0HjyIBrDpRP9OwnKrhKL5c0ZeaMjmUHG+vddkZFDDvqNAQTWkeAt3+CNGatZRicnY4u 3r3A== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject:to; bh=TlNbm7lnxp9Cto/GhJvV/hAKrtoV+KkRzcCX1RAUI44=; b=KWTOK/Y/tUYTnMg9t/WpBR5C1ALONmXn48tvM4RBvUicZTPYPXJxyxnJ4rjKHRt+MY EL8ETExd5v8U3LyLu72Ve6HKQlFCXveXbbth250as2jtU6T3aSdTei0gZDIo6gLOloEK W87xYiRisXuDSjZ40FfZK7k7xHYmNs6ZZoD4ncjSlvy2eBpUlf2l3xuWekYa8mufZ8lO sNvUs/vZelx5DpOKY4tAXOXLwRfKTyEEHnnkUDP1pJoFGMHG84nrrxwP9MqNjHaDScNy mQhZVHHBp59Jrz2goOuXnqVU9nQ84RqvkqCMDw+41Zq3L1pIBV29OFM+g0KF10WzxA6w N5aQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AEkoouukohCrXbZcLM7kJhLlIcq1iUoB/Xw9reEwKpJxz+mY9l4MiTV42oAUxY4q+uS8YPExEWvG06K8uLhXVw== X-Received: by 10.55.43.130 with SMTP id r2mr12651440qkr.223.1470394680050; Fri, 05 Aug 2016 03:58:00 -0700 (PDT) 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 Sender: freemanrich@gmail.com Received: by 10.140.40.36 with HTTP; Fri, 5 Aug 2016 03:57:59 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20160805022658.GA15727@linux1> References: <2e11e445-c25b-b7f2-def1-99aed92308b6@gentoo.org> <20160804162443.GA7048@whubbs1.gaikai.biz> <20160804231224.7b7462168f1d23e88fe4135c@gentoo.org> <20160804222234.GA8357@whubbs1.gaikai.biz> <20160805022658.GA15727@linux1> From: Rich Freeman Date: Fri, 5 Aug 2016 06:57:59 -0400 X-Google-Sender-Auth: lV8Oap5BCRQQhKchtPjLVWnw2lE Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] Call for agenda items - Council meeting 2016-08-14 To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Archives-Salt: 863bf56a-bc3e-4d4a-ae96-9349886d1308 X-Archives-Hash: 4fa57f3be989dd04f1eeef75c95a57dc On Thu, Aug 4, 2016 at 10:26 PM, William Hubbs wrote: > On Thu, Aug 04, 2016 at 07:25:52PM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote: >> >> I'm mostly fine with that, but I'd add just a requirement that >> somebody does a quick sanity check on an otherwise-stable system. The >> 30 days of testing is really only testing against dependencies that >> are in ~arch. Granted, that will become less of a concern if all >> those dependencies are also making their way to stable. > > Repoman will complain loudly if you try to stabilize something that > doesn't have all of its reverse dependencies stabilized, so I think we > are safe as long as people listen to repoman. I'm not advocating > stabilizing things with ~ reverse dependencies, just trying to find a > way to move stabilization along better than it has been moving. > This only helps if the sanity check is correct. If a package has a dependency on foo/bar, but it should have >=foo/bar-2, and ~arch is at -2 and stable is at -1, then repoman will happily let you stabilize your package even though it will break. Spending 30 days in testing might or might not spot the issue, it depends on whether users running mixed keywords test it. Since most testing users aren't running mixed keywords they may not spot that the package breaks with bar-1. I think we really ought to do SOME testing against the stable dependencies. Otherwise you're going to have the occasional breakage, and if people wanted occasional breakage they'd be running ~arch in the first place. I think it makes more sense to just get rid of stable than to make it a stale version of testing. Are the older packages actually hurting anybody? For the most common arch (amd64) maintainers can just stabilize their own packages, so old stable packages shouldn't be hurting maintainers (or if they are it is self-inflicted...). -- Rich