Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Pacho Ramos <pacho@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] mass stabilization and non-x86-non-amd64 arches
Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2011 15:39:45
Message-Id: 1324136311.3047.12.camel@belkin4
In Reply to: [gentoo-dev] mass stabilization and non-x86-non-amd64 arches by "Paweł Hajdan
1 El sáb, 17-12-2011 a las 16:22 +0100, "Paweł Hajdan, Jr." escribió:
2 > For several mass-filed stabilization bugs I got comments why I didn't cc
3 > arches like ppc.
4 >
5 > One problem is that I cc x86 and amd64 via "edit many bugs at once"
6 > Bugzilla feature, and when filing bugs the script checks that it's
7 > repoman-possible to stabilize given package on x86 and amd64.
8 >
9 > Not all packages are even keyworded ~ppc, and I guess there are packages
10 > that can be stabilized on x86 and amd64, but not ppc because of ~ppc
11 > dependencies.
12 >
13 > All of that is of course solvable with a smarter script, however I'm
14 > really worried about the additional load on the "rare arches". I
15 > frequently notice they drop stable keywords when asked for a
16 > stabilization of some rare package (and I'm fine with that), and they
17 > may be annoyed by stabilization requests for minor and revision bumps
18 > (which are fine at least for x86, because of the batch-stabilization
19 > workflow; of course other arches are welcome to adopt it too).
20 >
21 > What do you think? Should I make my scripts smarter, or is it fine to
22 > just cc x86 and amd64? Is anyone from non-x86-non-amd64 arch teams
23 > annoyed by the queue of stabilization bugs?
24 >
26 I am not in ppc* teams but, from my point of view, looks like they are
27 understaffed and I doubt they could handle so many requests. For mass
28 stabilization purposes I would keep the script for amd64/x86 only for
29 now :-/


File name MIME type
signature.asc application/pgp-signature