Re: [gentoo-dev] Improving the stabilisation process - part 1

[William Hubbs]

On Fri, Nov 25, 2016 at 06:41:20AM +1100, Michael Palimaka wrote:
> As I am sure everyone is aware by now, stabilisation requests on many
> architectures take a long time to be actioned. There are many factors
> contributing to this, but today I'd like to address three specific
> problems that unnecessarily delay developers actioning those requests.:
>
> 1. There's no easy way to pick atoms out of a stabilisation bug.
> Currently, atoms can appear, in a varying formations, in multiple
> locations: in the bug title, spread across multiple comments, in an
> attachment, [...].
>
> 2. There's no way to determine if a stabilisation request is valid (will
> pass repoman) until someone actually tries it.
>
> 3. There's no easy way to identify the level of testing required for any
> given request.
>
> To address this, I am proposing some changes to Bugzilla, some
> automation, and some improved tools.
>
>
> Bugzilla changes
> ================
>
> I'd like to introduce two new fields:
>
> 1. "Runtime testing required" - a drop-down list with three values:
>         * (unset) - the default. The stabilising developer will use
> their best judgement as to what testing is required
>         * Yes - the maintainer is specifically requesting runtime testing
>         * No - the maintainer is happy to stabilise with only a build
> test (for example, trivial revision bumps, libraries with good test
> coverage, or otherwise at the maintainer's discretion)
>
> 2. "Atoms to stabilise" - a textarea containing a list of fully
> qualified atoms. Each atom may optionally be followed by a
> whitespace-delimited list of architectures for which that atom should be
> stabilised. If an atom is not followed by any list of architectures, it
> is assumed it should be stabilised for all architectures CC'd on the bug.
>
> Example atom list from a bug with amd64, arm, and x86 in CC:
>
> =app-foo/bar-1.2.3           # will be stabilised on amd64, arm, and x86
> =app-foo/baz-2.3.4 amd64 x86 # will be stabilised on only amd64 and x86
 
Listing the architectures seems redundant if they are also in the cc:
field. In your example above, why would you need arm in the cc: field
 for app-foo/bas-2.3.4?

 William