1 |
Hi guys, |
2 |
as I am now messing around libreo I am meeting a lot packages that |
3 |
none bothered to stablereq since 2009 or so, the versions in ~ are |
4 |
cleaner, more up to date, and possibly contain less bugs. |
5 |
|
6 |
The issue here is that if some part of the tree looses lots of its |
7 |
maintainers we as devs usually manage to shape it up enough for us in |
8 |
testing but nobody ever bothers to wait that 30 days and open |
9 |
stablereq. |
10 |
|
11 |
So, the issue is obvious, we have packages in testing that are in |
12 |
better shape than stable ones. |
13 |
|
14 |
Testing requests for bumps are now handled by euscan +-, cool job for |
15 |
that website by Iksaf, and I thing we need something similary scanning |
16 |
the main tree for stables and instead of bugreports the arch |
17 |
teams would have queue. |
18 |
|
19 |
How would such thing work? |
20 |
|
21 |
Well it would be something like priority based queue with maximum 60 |
22 |
points value. |
23 |
Each update after the month in main tree would get 0 points for |
24 |
stabilisation, any-developer / maintainer would be able to add up to |
25 |
40 points to any package and security team members would be able to |
26 |
add all 60 points. Security team/any developer would also have |
27 |
possibility to add new packages to queue manualy. |
28 |
Each user could vote for any package giving out 1 point up to 10 |
29 |
points (eg max voteup for 10 concurent packages). |
30 |
For each folowing month the package would gain another 10 points, |
31 |
unless disqualified by qa/maintainer where it has to be off the queue |
32 |
for 1 month (or disqualified indefinetly based on some version range, |
33 |
eg beta series is 2.5 so we don't want to stable). |
34 |
Then arch team would just go and stabilise based up on the queue where |
35 |
each AT or arch dev could mark it as working. If there are 3 acks from |
36 |
Arch testers then even maintainer can proceed with the addition of the |
37 |
keyword not having to wait for arch dev to test the package, reducing |
38 |
the workload on arch devs (hopefully). |
39 |
|
40 |
The key problem for whole app is that you need to make sure the queue |
41 |
is a) properly sorted b) each request has proper depgraph so things |
42 |
does not break for AT/devs. |
43 |
This could be achieved by running the script and solving the depgraph |
44 |
prior creating the request. Example: |
45 |
We have stable possibility for harfbuzz and libreoffice, libreoffice |
46 |
depends on harfbuzz. |
47 |
The application would open just one stablerequest for libreoffice |
48 |
where it would put everything pulled in by its depgraph including |
49 |
harfbuzz and no separate request for harfbuzz is opened. If harfbuzz |
50 |
would not be ready yet for stabilisation then the libreoffice would |
51 |
not be YET added to the queue untill the harfbuzz passes the 30 days |
52 |
too. |
53 |
|
54 |
Here the queue of course have to differ for other arches as sparc have |
55 |
keyword for harfbuzz but not libreoffice. |
56 |
|
57 |
So do you thing it is possible to write such web app/ do you know if |
58 |
anyone would be able to write so? If no I think I have proposal for |
59 |
next GSoC as mentor :P but I would really like to see it sooner. |
60 |
|
61 |
Cheers |
62 |
|
63 |
Tom |
64 |
|
65 |
PS: no i can't write it, I seriously lack a time for such thing so I |
66 |
am just trying to find out if anyone is interested to work on it or if |
67 |
you even thing this is a good idea. |