while I appreciate very much what you are doing, there is one obvious problem: usually, as a maintainer, one does not file a stablereq for a single arch, but for all stable arches of a package.
Are the cited advances relevant for all stable arches, for the "major ones", or only for one of them?
I would like to avoid the situation that we all file stable requests like mad and end up with all-but-one swamped arch teams and a neverending list of open stabilization bugs waiting for the last arch.
Am Montag 21 November 2011, 09:41:07 schrieb Paweł Hajdan, Jr.:
> I think that with recent advancements in batch-stabilization we're able
> to process a much higher amount of stabilization bugs, and keep the bug
> queue low. It used to be longer than 100 bugs, but now it's closer to
> 20-30 bugs for which regressions or other problems have been detected.
> This allows us to do better testing of the stabilization candidates, but
> also I think we should start bringing even more updates to the stable tree.
> When doing stable testing I frequently notice bugs fixed in ~arch but
> not stabilized, so stable is frequently affected by problems that could
> be easily fixed by stabilizing a more recent version.
> I wrote a script,
> that scans the tree for packages that could be easily stabilized (all
> deps stable, no bugs).
> I'm attaching a list of packages that are sitting in the tree for at
> least 6 months (180 days, way more than 30 days required for
> stabilization) and should be ready for stabilization.
> Please review the list, it's 800+ packages so I thought about asking for
> feedback before filing stabilization bugs (I plan to do that in stages
> of course).
Andreas K. Huettel
Gentoo Linux developer - kde, sci, arm, tex