| 1 |
Hi! |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
On Sat, 19 Sep 2015, Agostino Sarubbo wrote: |
| 4 |
> The ALLARCHES keyword is out since some time. For who does not |
| 5 |
> remeber, the announcement is here [1] |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> So, if an arch developer tests the package(s) on one |
| 8 |
> architecture, he is allowed to stabilize/keyword for all. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
This can lead to an interesting effect: |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
arch_A maintainer sees ALLARCHES keyworded bug, and tests |
| 13 |
everything on A. Upon keywording and running repoman, she finds |
| 14 |
that two other arches need additional deps. What to do? |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
The only feasible thing is to keyword for A and remove the |
| 17 |
ALLARCHES keyword from the bug (and add a comment to that |
| 18 |
effect). |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
Anything that involves more work than that will result in |
| 21 |
maintainer mikado: whoever first touches the bug is stuck with |
| 22 |
it. As a result, these bugs will rot much longer than is useful. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
If anything, I'd say that the _maintainer_ can go ahead and |
| 25 |
stabilize on all[0] arches after the first arch-specific |
| 26 |
stabilization. Thus owning the decision and possible fallout. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
Regards, |
| 29 |
Tobias |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
[0] I am pretty sure some arches will want to opt out of this |
| 33 |
scheme, at least for some more critical packages. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
-- |
| 36 |
Sent from aboard the Culture ship |
| 37 |
OU I Said, I've Got A Big Stick |
Archives