| 1 |
For several mass-filed stabilization bugs I got comments why I didn't cc |
| 2 |
arches like ppc. |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
One problem is that I cc x86 and amd64 via "edit many bugs at once" |
| 5 |
Bugzilla feature, and when filing bugs the script checks that it's |
| 6 |
repoman-possible to stabilize given package on x86 and amd64. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
Not all packages are even keyworded ~ppc, and I guess there are packages |
| 9 |
that can be stabilized on x86 and amd64, but not ppc because of ~ppc |
| 10 |
dependencies. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
All of that is of course solvable with a smarter script, however I'm |
| 13 |
really worried about the additional load on the "rare arches". I |
| 14 |
frequently notice they drop stable keywords when asked for a |
| 15 |
stabilization of some rare package (and I'm fine with that), and they |
| 16 |
may be annoyed by stabilization requests for minor and revision bumps |
| 17 |
(which are fine at least for x86, because of the batch-stabilization |
| 18 |
workflow; of course other arches are welcome to adopt it too). |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
What do you think? Should I make my scripts smarter, or is it fine to |
| 21 |
just cc x86 and amd64? Is anyone from non-x86-non-amd64 arch teams |
| 22 |
annoyed by the queue of stabilization bugs? |
Archives