| 1 |
Mark Loeser wrote: |
| 2 |
> Removing Stable Ebuilds |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> If an ebuild meets the time criteria above, and there are no technical issues |
| 5 |
> preventing stabilization, then the maintainer MAY choose to delete an older |
| 6 |
> version even if it is the most recent stable version for a particular arch. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
What if this would break deps or it's a very common package for example |
| 9 |
belonging to the set of system packages? |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
If we would opt for such a fixed timeframe for architectures teams to |
| 12 |
fix bugs I'd like to rate those bugs at least partially like security@ |
| 13 |
does - that would allow us to have different timeframes for |
| 14 |
stabilization depending on how much the package in questions is |
| 15 |
(expected to be) installed at our users' systems. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
In my opinion we would need to address two main concerns with this |
| 18 |
discussion: |
| 19 |
1) What can we do to help understaffed architecture teams? |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
What about using a tinderbox (yeah, i know - we have lots of tinderboxes |
| 22 |
already around) which automatically (re)builds stable-candidates and |
| 23 |
those of the candidates which a) includes a test phase and b) pass that |
| 24 |
test phase might be stabled by the maintainer/herd and not only the |
| 25 |
architecture team, for example? |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
2) When do we move an architecture back to ~arch? |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
We would need to define a threshold of when an stable architecture has |
| 30 |
to enter a probation period (and who and what's going to start that |
| 31 |
process) and a timeframe after which either the architecture is moved |
| 32 |
back to ~arch or the architecture team has proven that it is able to |
| 33 |
maintain stable keywords (define who's going to decide this). |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
Tobias |
Archives