1 |
On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 3:12 PM, William Hubbs <williamh@g.o> wrote: |
2 |
> On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 02:33:52PM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote: |
3 |
>> I'd rather see maintainers just yank the last stable package and break |
4 |
>> the depgraph and let the arch teams deal with the cleanup than have |
5 |
>> them mark stuff stable without any testing at all. Or build a script |
6 |
>> that does the keyword cleanup for them. De-keywording late stable |
7 |
>> requests is a solution that is self-correcting. As packages are |
8 |
>> reduced from the stable set then there are fewer stable requests and |
9 |
>> the arch team is better able to focus on the ones they deem important. |
10 |
>> Throwing more packages in stable that aren't actually stable just |
11 |
>> makes that problem worse, and destroys whatever value the stable |
12 |
>> keyword had on the arch. For small arch teams they really should be |
13 |
>> focusing their time on core packages. |
14 |
> |
15 |
> Rich, This was my original thinking about this issue. It turned out to |
16 |
> be more controversial than I originally thought -- folks told me that |
17 |
> stable tree users expect stability above all, so breaking the depgraph |
18 |
> is unacceptable, so I'm just trying to find something that is more |
19 |
> palletable. |
20 |
> |
21 |
|
22 |
Well, I wasn't suggesting that breaking the depgraph is great. Just |
23 |
that I think it is better than calling things stable which aren't. |
24 |
|
25 |
A better approach is a script that does the keyword cleanup. |
26 |
|
27 |
So, if you want to reap an ebuild you run "destabilize |
28 |
foo-1.2.ebuild". It searches the tree for all reverse deps and |
29 |
removes stable keywords from those. Then you commit all of that in |
30 |
one commit. |
31 |
|
32 |
If you want to be extra nice you stick it in a pull request in github |
33 |
and point it out to the arch team and ask them if they're sure they |
34 |
don't want to stabilize your package... :) |
35 |
|
36 |
-- |
37 |
Rich |