Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: stabilization policies

[Ian Stakenvicius]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

On 20/08/13 02:19 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
> All,
>
> I'm not really sure what the answer to this problem is, so I want
> to know what the group thinks about how we can handle it.
>
> During the last release of OpenRC, I learned that people *do* run
> production servers on ~arch. I asked about it and was told that
> the reason for this is bitrot in the stable tree.
>
> My question is, how can we improve our stabilization
> procedures/policies so we can convince people not to run production
> servers on ~arch and keep the stable tree more up to date?
>
> Thanks,
>
> William
>

I see a few issues with ~arch -> table migrations:

#1 - things just sit in ~arch.  The auto-stablereq script should help
with this one I think; we should give it some time to see if it works out.

#2 - the inter-related'ness of packages -- sending one package from
~arch to stable is often not sufficient, rather that package and a
whole set of (r)deps all need to go to stable at the same time, and
those packages are not necessarily managed by the same herd or team.
Because of this I can see why the solution to #1 ends up getting
blocked.  I don't have a solution for this one; we need to figure out
better ways of dev's working together to push packages to stable more
often; maybe more tracker bugs? dunno...

Of course, developer communication only improves things when there
aren't any bugs that block one package and therefore the entire set of
(r)deps.  It could be that this is the real root cause of ~arch holdbacks.


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.20 (GNU/Linux)

iF4EAREIAAYFAlITtT8ACgkQ2ugaI38ACPDFvQEAvMsB/0+l/upCsHF4Fo1wDcar
RWd8jh+qtRBY7vnL/0wA/0c0jNpUva5QY4VfLFlI0oO3Zyeui2yh6JaVzST6Gqar
=6AqJ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----