| 1 |
On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 09:03:35AM +0200, Michael Weber wrote: |
| 2 |
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 3 |
> Hash: SHA256 |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> On 08/22/2013 08:38 AM, Sergey Popov wrote: |
| 6 |
> > 21.08.2013 22:28, Alexis Ballier пишет: |
| 7 |
> >> |
| 8 |
> >> Instead of dropping them entirely to ~arch, maybe something in |
| 9 |
> >> between could be done: Said arches could start moving to ~arch |
| 10 |
> >> the leaf and less important packages. E.g. we have (had?) a lot |
| 11 |
> >> of sparc keywords on sound packages or ppc keywords on ocaml ones |
| 12 |
> >> because at some point (~10 years ago) some dev was interested in |
| 13 |
> >> these on this architecture but I'm pretty sure nobody uses them. |
| 14 |
> >> |
| 15 |
> >> In short: Reduce stable coverage to reduce the workload. |
| 16 |
> >> |
| 17 |
> >> Also, from what I've seen in the thread, you are talking about |
| 18 |
> >> keywords only, right ? Do these arches keep their stable mark in |
| 19 |
> >> profiles.desc? |
| 20 |
> >> |
| 21 |
> > |
| 22 |
> > I like this way much more. Let's clarify stabilization policy for |
| 23 |
> > some minor arches, e.g. policy about stabilization requests for |
| 24 |
> > huge packages. Cause dropping entire arch to ~arch maybe sometimes |
| 25 |
> > a bit overkill. |
| 26 |
> |
| 27 |
> And hard to revert. Sparc did drop a lot of keywords lately, by removing |
| 28 |
> itself from STABLEREQ w/o stabling the mentioned package. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
Give maintainers some ability to take some action as well. Say I |
| 31 |
maintain package foo, and there is an old version that is stable on a |
| 32 |
minor arch. Say a stabilization request for a newer version has been |
| 33 |
opened for a while (30-60 days is probably sufficient) and the arch team |
| 34 |
hasn't responded. I want a path that would allow me to remove the older |
| 35 |
version of foo from the tree and close out the stable request. |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
William |
Archives