Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH v2] profiles.desc: Lower profiles with broken depgraph from dev to exp

[Michał Górny]

W dniu czw, 11.01.2018 o godzinie 22∶30 +0200, użytkownik Mart Raudsepp
napisał:
> On Thu, 2018-01-11 at 21:27 +0100, Michał Górny wrote:
> > W dniu czw, 11.01.2018 o godzinie 22∶17 +0200, użytkownik Mart
> > Raudsepp
> > napisał:
> > > On Thu, 2018-01-11 at 20:45 +0100, Michał Górny wrote:
> > > >  # ARM64 Profiles
> > > > -arm64           default/linux/arm64/13.0
> > > > dev
> > > > +arm64           default/linux/arm64/13.0
> > > > exp
> > > >  arm64           default/linux/arm64/13.0/desktop
> > > > exp
> > > > -arm64           default/linux/arm64/13.0/desktop/systemd
> > > > dev
> > > > +arm64           default/linux/arm64/13.0/desktop/systemd
> > > > exp
> > > >  arm64           default/linux/arm64/13.0/developer
> > > > exp
> > > >  arm64           default/linux/arm64/13.0/systemd
> > > > exp
> > > > -arm64           default/linux/arm64/17.0
> > > > dev
> > > > +arm64           default/linux/arm64/17.0
> > > > exp
> > > >  arm64           default/linux/arm64/17.0/desktop
> > > > exp
> > > > -arm64           default/linux/arm64/17.0/desktop/systemd
> > > > dev
> > > > +arm64           default/linux/arm64/17.0/desktop/systemd
> > > > exp
> > > >  arm64           default/linux/arm64/17.0/developer
> > > > exp
> > > >  arm64           default/linux/arm64/17.0/systemd
> > > > exp
> > >
> > > With this I'll need to run through all of these profiles with
> > > repoman -e=y and wait a long time, instead of just the two (well,
> > > with
> > > 17.0 now 4) profiles that I actually care about and checks enough.
> > > I
> > > also will see a TON of issues from the musl profiles down below
> > > that
> > > main block (it doesn't inherit base or something).
> > >
> > > This would make arm64 work completely impossible, so NAK from me.
> >
> > repoman has --include-arches option for a reason. Profile statuses
> > are
> > not your private convenience.
>
> That doesn't help whatsoever due to musl. Also not for running things
> on a slower arch (mips in this case).
>
> > > Additionally if depgraph wouldn't be broken anymore, we would be
> > > moving
> > > them to stable, not some separate "dev" step.
> > >
> > > Same goes for the mips main block changes.
> >
> > But it is broken, and it won't become less broken if we keep ignoring
> > the fact and not reporting new breakages just because one developer
> > can't fix his workflow.
>
> Your patch simply removes dev completely, with no reason for it to
> exist anymore then. If depgraph isn't broken, it'd be stable. There'd
> be no reason for dev. Dev is dev BECAUSE it has a broken depgraph, but
> is aspiring towards not.
> My workflow is just fine.
>

The point of dev is to bring staging warnings so that we can improve
the depgraph. If you really insist, we can start with dev status for
arm64 & mips. But it'd be more readable if we worked on only one arch
simultaneously.

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny