| 1 |
On 12/17/2011 05:22 PM, "Paweł Hajdan, Jr." wrote: |
| 2 |
> For several mass-filed stabilization bugs I got comments why I didn't cc |
| 3 |
> arches like ppc. |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> One problem is that I cc x86 and amd64 via "edit many bugs at once" |
| 6 |
> Bugzilla feature, and when filing bugs the script checks that it's |
| 7 |
> repoman-possible to stabilize given package on x86 and amd64. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> Not all packages are even keyworded ~ppc, and I guess there are packages |
| 10 |
> that can be stabilized on x86 and amd64, but not ppc because of ~ppc |
| 11 |
> dependencies. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> All of that is of course solvable with a smarter script, however I'm |
| 14 |
> really worried about the additional load on the "rare arches". I |
| 15 |
> frequently notice they drop stable keywords when asked for a |
| 16 |
> stabilization of some rare package (and I'm fine with that), and they |
| 17 |
> may be annoyed by stabilization requests for minor and revision bumps |
| 18 |
> (which are fine at least for x86, because of the batch-stabilization |
| 19 |
> workflow; of course other arches are welcome to adopt it too). |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> What do you think? Should I make my scripts smarter, or is it fine to |
| 22 |
> just cc x86 and amd64? Is anyone from non-x86-non-amd64 arch teams |
| 23 |
> annoyed by the queue of stabilization bugs? |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
For reference, it's http://bugs.gentoo.org/394021 |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
So in this case ppc has stable keyword in x11-misc/fireflies package, |
| 29 |
then leaving out ppc from the CC in the bug will only increase the |
| 30 |
workload for the maintainers since they need to reopen the old |
| 31 |
stabilization bug or file a new one just for ppc. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
So i'd rather not see any arches added to CC list at all, if you don't |
| 34 |
do it properly all the way. |
Archives