Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Samuli Suominen <ssuominen@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] mass stabilization and non-x86-non-amd64 arches
Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2011 19:10:57
Message-Id: 4EECE8E7.5040407@gentoo.org
In Reply to: [gentoo-dev] mass stabilization and non-x86-non-amd64 arches by "Paweł Hajdan
On 12/17/2011 05:22 PM, "Paweł Hajdan, Jr." wrote:
> For several mass-filed stabilization bugs I got comments why I didn't cc > arches like ppc. > > One problem is that I cc x86 and amd64 via "edit many bugs at once" > Bugzilla feature, and when filing bugs the script checks that it's > repoman-possible to stabilize given package on x86 and amd64. > > Not all packages are even keyworded ~ppc, and I guess there are packages > that can be stabilized on x86 and amd64, but not ppc because of ~ppc > dependencies. > > All of that is of course solvable with a smarter script, however I'm > really worried about the additional load on the "rare arches". I > frequently notice they drop stable keywords when asked for a > stabilization of some rare package (and I'm fine with that), and they > may be annoyed by stabilization requests for minor and revision bumps > (which are fine at least for x86, because of the batch-stabilization > workflow; of course other arches are welcome to adopt it too). > > What do you think? Should I make my scripts smarter, or is it fine to > just cc x86 and amd64? Is anyone from non-x86-non-amd64 arch teams > annoyed by the queue of stabilization bugs? >
For reference, it's http://bugs.gentoo.org/394021 So in this case ppc has stable keyword in x11-misc/fireflies package, then leaving out ppc from the CC in the bug will only increase the workload for the maintainers since they need to reopen the old stabilization bug or file a new one just for ppc. So i'd rather not see any arches added to CC list at all, if you don't do it properly all the way.