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: "Mr. Aaron W. Swenson" <titanofold@g.o>
Subject: Re: making the stable tree more up-to-date
Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2011 14:06:01 -0500
On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 05:39:32PM +0100, Thomas Kahle wrote:
> On 09:41 Mon 21 Nov 2011, "Paweł Hajdan, Jr." wrote:
> > 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.
> 
> I still remember that arfrever had such a script running for python
> packages and that we were quite annoyed by the automatic stable bugs for
> every minor version of every small python package.  For this reason I'm
> against running the script constantly.  Packages with high release
> frequence upstream don't need every of their versions to be stabilized.
> Personally, I think they don't even need every of their versions
> bumped...
> 
> On the other hand, having a big stable frenzy once every few months
> seems good for exactly the reasons you name.
> 
> Cheers,
> Thomas
> 
> > 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,
> > <http://git.overlays.gentoo.org/gitweb/?p=proj/arch-tools.git;a=blob;f=stabilization-candidates.py;hb=HEAD>,
> > 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).
> > 
> > Paweł

The way I understand it, the only things that should be picked up are
those package that have already been in the tree for 180 days. So, it
wouldn't be submitting requests for unmaintained packages constantly
unless somebody is sneaking in bumps. After this first large batch I'd
imagine the requests to taper off quickly.

-- 
Mr. Aaron W. Swenson
Gentoo Linux Developer
Email    : titanofold@g.o
GnuPG FP : 2C00 7719 4F85 FB07 A49C  0E31 5713 AA03 D1BB FDA0
GnuPG ID : D1BBFDA0
Attachment:
pgpNglR0r295f.pgp (PGP signature)
References:
making the stable tree more up-to-date
-- Paweł Hajdan, Jr.
Re: making the stable tree more up-to-date
-- Thomas Kahle
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: restricting phases where enew{user,group} is allowed


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.