Gentoo Logo
Gentoo Spaceship




Note: Due to technical difficulties, the Archives are currently not up to date. GMANE provides an alternative service for most mailing lists.
c.f. bug 424647
List Archive: gentoo-dev
Navigation:
Lists: gentoo-dev: < Prev By Thread Next > < Prev By Date Next >
Headers:
To: gentoo-dev@g.o
From: "Paweł Hajdan, Jr." <phajdan.jr@g.o>
Subject: Re: making the stable tree more up-to-date
Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2011 14:27:30 +0100
On 12/16/11 11:42 AM, justin wrote:
> I really like that you open all those bugs. But it makes no sense to
>  add arches after a "time out". At least not after a such a short 
> one.

I'm sorry this has annoyed/upset you. Let me just point out some facts:

- in November I first wrote about this new "more stabilizations" thing,
and included a list of ~800 packages, including many sci- ones
(<http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_a8d47428737e600238e3ad3d60f79208.xml>).
I don't remember any complains from the sci- maintainers then.

- people complain that a week-long timeout is too short, while after I
CC arches the answer often comes within minutes.

- actually in this case you've said "go ahead" for the bugs filed (thank
you!), so I don't fully understand the concerns here

- the bugs get filed when a package's most recent version has spent 6
months in ~arch, has _no_ open bugs, and is not a beta/alpha/rc/whatever
version. Many packages for which I filed bugs spent in ~arch a year or more.

> The maintainer is responsible for the package, that means it is
> their responsibility to decide that a package should go stable.

Packages with stable versions a year behind suggest this is not always
the case. Furthermore, most maintainers are happy about those
stabilizations (or tools), and users also like it.

> In addition they have to make the package fit to the standards that 
> the arch teams request.

There are standards and nits. We frequently stabilize a package if only
nits are present.

> So as long as you don't review the packages yourself, consider a
> different proceeding than this timeout.

See the conditions above that packages have to meet to be included in
the stabilization list. I consider that an adequate review, and I know
arch developers and testers who look at the ebuilds.

It's always possible to close the bug if the package is deemed not ready.

> Please remove all added arches from the packages maintained by all 
> sci* teams.

I can do that, but are you sure? I noted you've commented "go ahead"
on many of those (thank you!) - how about those bugs?

Attachment:
signature.asc (OpenPGP digital signature)
Replies:
Re: making the stable tree more up-to-date
-- justin
Re: making the stable tree more up-to-date
-- Rich Freeman
References:
making the stable tree more up-to-date
-- Paweł Hajdan, Jr.
Re: making the stable tree more up-to-date
-- justin
Navigation:
Lists: gentoo-dev: < Prev By Thread Next > < Prev By Date Next >
Previous by thread:
Re: making the stable tree more up-to-date
Next by thread:
Re: making the stable tree more up-to-date
Previous by date:
Re: making the stable tree more up-to-date
Next by date:
Re: making the stable tree more up-to-date


Updated Jun 29, 2012

Summary: Archive of the gentoo-dev mailing list.

Donate to support our development efforts.

Copyright 2001-2013 Gentoo Foundation, Inc. Questions, Comments? Contact us.