1 |
On Sun, 14 Aug 2016 23:35:58 +0200 |
2 |
Kristian Fiskerstrand <k_f@g.o> wrote: |
3 |
|
4 |
> During the latest Council meeting it was determined to set up a new |
5 |
> Working Group to come up with recommendations for improving the state |
6 |
> of the stable tree at a later Council meeting. |
7 |
> |
8 |
> Some initial items it was suggested the WG look into is |
9 |
> * The b.g.o workflow, bugs should not be considered fixed until the |
10 |
> fix has reached the stable tree. Today the InVCS keyword exists for |
11 |
> this purpose, but it is used to varying degree amongst developers. |
12 |
> Will a workflow change to introduce a new status, e.g RESOLVED |
13 |
> NeedsStable (name for illustration purpose only) incentivize |
14 |
> developers to not close bugs before it is fixed? |
15 |
> |
16 |
> * Are there ways to reduce the stabilization lag of packages |
17 |
> - looking into the effectiveness of ALLARCHES and its use |
18 |
> - possibility for maintainer to stabilize packages themselves for |
19 |
> architectures they have access to (including whether there |
20 |
> might be a need for changes to gentoo infrastructure to facilitate |
21 |
> this) |
22 |
> - Tinderboxing / Automatic tools build test packages and reverse |
23 |
> dependencies in order to assist in stabilization |
24 |
> |
25 |
> Other suggestions are up to the WG to come up with and write up a |
26 |
> final report to the council with the summary of these discussions. |
27 |
> |
28 |
> I've volunteered to chair such as working group. If you want to |
29 |
> participate in it please respond to this thread. Additionally I've set |
30 |
> up #gentoo-wg-stable as a place of coordination. |
31 |
> |
32 |
|
33 |
Don't forget to get input from current (active?) arch teams how they |
34 |
work and do their stuff. IMHO the whole bugzilla workflow etc. is just |
35 |
a small piece in the whole stabilization business. |
36 |
|
37 |
|
38 |
Regards, |
39 |
Markus |