Re: [gentoo-dev] AMD64 Arch Testers needed urgently

[Alec Warner]

On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 3:34 PM, Kristian Fiskerstrand <k_f@g.o>
wrote:

> On 12/14/2017 01:01 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> > In the beginning the system would be opt-in.  Then once we have
> > confidence that it is working well the flag could potentially be made
> > opt-out.
>
> The only place I imagine this being a good idea is for the kernel, given
> the strict no break of userland policy (but even they fail from time to
> time). For rest of the applications, even if we add tools to help
> automate part of the stabilization, I'd very much oppose it being
> automated without being initiated / acked by the maintainer.
>

This reminds me a bit of advertising actually:

"Nineteenth century Philadelphia retailer John Wanamaker supposedly said
“Half the money I spend on advertising is wasted; the trouble is I don't
know which half.” "

I feel like stabilization are similar; we know many of them are likely safe
and don't need humans. But many are unsafe and require validation.
Can we tell them apart? Perhaps Rich's flag is sufficient?

Its also a risk mitigation problem. Is it better for Gentoo to have more
packages marked stable (so that stable is closer to HEAD). Or is it more
valauble
for Gentoo to have a very old stable (like debian) and then have a split
keywords system?

I'm skeptical the keywords for most packages matter, particularly on common
arches. Remember this is usually software that upstream
already tested and released; so most of the bugs would be ebuild / Gentoo
related.

-A




>
> --
> Kristian Fiskerstrand
> OpenPGP keyblock reachable at hkp://pool.sks-keyservers.net
> fpr:94CB AFDD 3034 5109 5618 35AA 0B7F 8B60 E3ED FAE3
>
>