Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: "PaweĊ‚ Hajdan
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] making the stable tree more up-to-date
Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2011 13:28:38
Message-Id: 4EEB4742.5000302@gentoo.org
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] making the stable tree more up-to-date by justin
On 12/16/11 11:42 AM, justin wrote:
> I really like that you open all those bugs. But it makes no sense to > add arches after a "time out". At least not after a such a short > one.
I'm sorry this has annoyed/upset you. Let me just point out some facts: - in November I first wrote about this new "more stabilizations" thing, and included a list of ~800 packages, including many sci- ones (<http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_a8d47428737e600238e3ad3d60f79208.xml>). I don't remember any complains from the sci- maintainers then. - people complain that a week-long timeout is too short, while after I CC arches the answer often comes within minutes. - actually in this case you've said "go ahead" for the bugs filed (thank you!), so I don't fully understand the concerns here - the bugs get filed when a package's most recent version has spent 6 months in ~arch, has _no_ open bugs, and is not a beta/alpha/rc/whatever version. Many packages for which I filed bugs spent in ~arch a year or more.
> The maintainer is responsible for the package, that means it is > their responsibility to decide that a package should go stable.
Packages with stable versions a year behind suggest this is not always the case. Furthermore, most maintainers are happy about those stabilizations (or tools), and users also like it.
> In addition they have to make the package fit to the standards that > the arch teams request.
There are standards and nits. We frequently stabilize a package if only nits are present.
> So as long as you don't review the packages yourself, consider a > different proceeding than this timeout.
See the conditions above that packages have to meet to be included in the stabilization list. I consider that an adequate review, and I know arch developers and testers who look at the ebuilds. It's always possible to close the bug if the package is deemed not ready.
> Please remove all added arches from the packages maintained by all > sci* teams.
I can do that, but are you sure? I noted you've commented "go ahead" on many of those (thank you!) - how about those bugs?

Attachments

File name MIME type
signature.asc application/pgp-signature

Replies