1 |
El sáb, 17-12-2011 a las 16:22 +0100, "Paweł Hajdan, Jr." escribió: |
2 |
> For several mass-filed stabilization bugs I got comments why I didn't cc |
3 |
> arches like ppc. |
4 |
> |
5 |
> One problem is that I cc x86 and amd64 via "edit many bugs at once" |
6 |
> Bugzilla feature, and when filing bugs the script checks that it's |
7 |
> repoman-possible to stabilize given package on x86 and amd64. |
8 |
> |
9 |
> Not all packages are even keyworded ~ppc, and I guess there are packages |
10 |
> that can be stabilized on x86 and amd64, but not ppc because of ~ppc |
11 |
> dependencies. |
12 |
> |
13 |
> All of that is of course solvable with a smarter script, however I'm |
14 |
> really worried about the additional load on the "rare arches". I |
15 |
> frequently notice they drop stable keywords when asked for a |
16 |
> stabilization of some rare package (and I'm fine with that), and they |
17 |
> may be annoyed by stabilization requests for minor and revision bumps |
18 |
> (which are fine at least for x86, because of the batch-stabilization |
19 |
> workflow; of course other arches are welcome to adopt it too). |
20 |
> |
21 |
> What do you think? Should I make my scripts smarter, or is it fine to |
22 |
> just cc x86 and amd64? Is anyone from non-x86-non-amd64 arch teams |
23 |
> annoyed by the queue of stabilization bugs? |
24 |
> |
25 |
|
26 |
I am not in ppc* teams but, from my point of view, looks like they are |
27 |
understaffed and I doubt they could handle so many requests. For mass |
28 |
stabilization purposes I would keep the script for amd64/x86 only for |
29 |
now :-/ |