Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Steev Klimaszewski <steev@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: revisiting our stabilization policy
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2014 01:00:58
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: revisiting our stabilization policy by William Hubbs
1 On Wed, 2014-01-15 at 13:07 -0600, William Hubbs wrote:
2 > When you say "drop keywords" do you mean:
3 >
4 > 1) revert the old version back to ~arch or
5 > 2) remove the old version.
6 >
7 > As a maintainer, I would rather do 2, because I do not want to backport
8 > fixes to the old version.
9 >
10 > William
11 >
13 I'm not sure what he meant by drop keywords either, however, something
14 that I would like to see (with my ARM hat on here) - is, if something is
15 taking a while to stable for a certain arch, remove the keywords except
16 for that existing arch.
18 We actually ran into something along this issue with git.
20 Now, arm is an interesting keyword, because for arm, when something
21 needs to be stabled, we have to test armv4, armv5, armv6, armv6
22 hardfloat, armv7, armv7 hardfloat, armv7 uclibc.
24 In my testing, one known issue was that git on uclibc did (and still
25 doesn't) work properly starting with git 1.8 - so I noted in the bug
26 that this was the case, and to NOT stable it for arm. Unfortunately,
27 someone else on the ARM team disregarded the note and stabled the new
28 git, then the git maintainers dropped the old versions. Now on arm
29 uclibc, git is entirely broken and unusable.
31 And no, adding more people to the arch team doesn't particularly help,
32 as people are buying more and more armv7 so they test that, but not the
33 rest of the versions - and no one wants to buy the older hardware
34 "because it's so slow" - we know it's slow, that's why it takes time.
36 I'd have definitely preferred that for git, that the 1.7 version stuck
37 around with just KEYWORDS="-* arm" (and maybe even stabling 1.8 but
38 leaving 1.7 in masked?) - I realize it was a bit of a special case
39 because of the new git eclass. Unfortunately, debugging what's going
40 on, is a bit above me, and the only other person I know who can/does
41 work on it, is blueness, and he's quite busy.


Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: revisiting our stabilization policy "Robin H. Johnson" <robbat2@g.o>