Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: stabilization policies

[Tom Wijsman]

On Wed, 21 Aug 2013 16:16:53 +0400
Sergey Popov <pinkbyte@g.o> wrote:

> >> And if you want to move stabilization checks to unqualified users,
> >> then it is way to nowhere.
> >
> > No, because there would be much more users giving feedback.
>
> Feedback is good. But if it simple "works for me" without tests on
> CFLAGS/LDFLAGS respect regression, cross-compile breakage regression
> or any other regressions, than it is pointless.

Sounds like Tinderbox covers those; so, it has a point for the rest.

> I would suggest increase number of arch testers... Or, i repeat
> myself(in infinite time), "recruit more people"

That I agree with; but, will that be enough?

> >>> So, recruiting in the terms of "finding recruits" appears to be
> >>> hard.
> >>
> >> But, at my POV, it is only one way that we can improve current
> >> situation.
> >
> > Sorry, I do not understand (language barrier), do you mean that 1)
> > that should be the way to improve it or do you mean that 2) this is
> > just one approach and that we should look at different ones?
> >
>
> Yeah, my grammar sucks, i know. So, let's summarize what i mean. To
> deal with our current problems with arches we have only two ways:
>
> 1) drop some arches to unstable -> lower the burden to arch teams;

This didn't come up until recently; so, yes, that might work! :)

> 2) recruit more arch testers/arch team members;

Same point as before, let's see if that will be enough.

-- 
With kind regards,

Tom Wijsman (TomWij)
Gentoo Developer

E-mail address  : TomWij@g.o
GPG Public Key  : 6D34E57D
GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2  ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D