Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Tom Wijsman <TomWij@g.o>
To: pinkbyte@g.o
Cc: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: revisiting our stabilization policy
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2014 16:58:30
Message-Id: 20140115175722.27b76cb7@TOMWIJ-GENTOO
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: revisiting our stabilization policy by Sergey Popov
1 On Wed, 15 Jan 2014 15:33:28 +0400
2 Sergey Popov <pinkbyte@g.o> wrote:
4 > 15.01.2014 06:42, Tom Wijsman пишет:
5 > > And for that occasional mis-guess, *boohoo*, the user can just file
6 > > a bug; which ironically even happens occasionally for stable
7 > > packages.
8 >
9 > If we blindly approves increasing of such mis-guesses, then our QA
10 > level in arch teams will down below the apropriate level IMO. And
11 > this is not good first of all for our stable users.
13 What I'm saying is that even on arch team stabilized ebuilds bugs
14 getting filed happens as well; so, it happening for a maintainer
15 stabilized ebuild wouldn't be so problematic from that perspective.
17 But, indeed, it depends on which arch team procedure efforts the
18 maintainer actually applies; on an own arch it is quite possible for
19 the maintainer to be near the QA level of the arch team, whereas not
20 having access to a certain architecture can indeed become problematic.
22 So, for the arches the maintainers do have, it depends on what the
23 maintainers do as much as what the arch teams do; and to be realistic
24 arch teams might not always do everything as intended, especially under
25 time pressure. In my opinion, a maintainer would even spend more time.
27 As for arches the maintainer does not have, the available machines
28 might be usable; though the doubt is whether they have enough power.
30 Most of this discussion is hypothetical assuming stabilization stays
31 (or continues to grow to be more) problematic; who knows we might get
32 to see the opposite effect that this thread yields some new arch team
33 members, which could make what we've discussed here not necessary in the
34 short term run. It is clear everyone wants to hold on to the arch teams.
36 --
37 With kind regards,
39 Tom Wijsman (TomWij)
40 Gentoo Developer
42 E-mail address : TomWij@g.o
43 GPG Public Key : 6D34E57D
44 GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2 ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D


File name MIME type
signature.asc application/pgp-signature


Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: revisiting our stabilization policy Matthew Thode <prometheanfire@g.o>