1 |
On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 3:25 PM, Kristian Fiskerstrand <k_f@g.o> wrote: |
2 |
>> very different process from handling bugs and feature requests. It |
3 |
>> would be great if we had tooling that focuses on these instead of |
4 |
>> trying to fit into the bug tracker. It would entail a different |
5 |
> |
6 |
> I'm not sure I agree on this point, my perspective is the state of the |
7 |
> stable tree is exactly dependent on it being considered as part of the |
8 |
> regular workflow of developers, which has at least been implied in the |
9 |
> past[0] - resulting in e.g InVCS. |
10 |
> |
11 |
> Part of the discussion in that case is the number of developers running |
12 |
> full testing (~arch) and might not care too much about the state of the |
13 |
> stable tree, and having stabilization as part of the specific workflow |
14 |
> will help the state of the stable tree by requiring the developer to |
15 |
> care about it. |
16 |
|
17 |
Ah, right. My perspective is mostly coming from the impression that |
18 |
most developers don't seem to care much for the stable arch trees; |
19 |
whereas I run stable with only a few exceptions, mostly for things |
20 |
that I maintain myself. |
21 |
|
22 |
The other angle here is that, for packages written in C/C++ at least, |
23 |
it seems dangerous to assume that the package will just work on |
24 |
non-x86 architectures (and I've even encountered packages where |
25 |
upstream is somewhat hostile to 32-bits x86). If that is the case, and |
26 |
assuming that maintainers do not have access to hardware for the other |
27 |
architectures, then I'm not sure how much sense it makes to involve |
28 |
the maintainer in the process of tracking stability for their package |
29 |
on these other architectures, except insofar as explicitly requested |
30 |
by the arch team. |
31 |
|
32 |
To frame it differently, I think this whole discussion is very |
33 |
different for amd64/x86 (which most packages are developed for) vs |
34 |
pretty much every other architecture. The point is, it doesn't seem to |
35 |
be a good idea to make people responsible for things that they're very |
36 |
much not intrinsically motivated to care for, and making maintainers |
37 |
care for keywording/stabilization on non-convential arches is tricky |
38 |
from that perspective. |
39 |
|
40 |
Cheers, |
41 |
|
42 |
Dirkjan |