Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Steev Klimaszewski <steev@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: rfc: revisiting our stabilization policy
Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2014 20:29:12
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: rfc: revisiting our stabilization policy by Tom Wijsman
1 On Fri, 2014-01-24 at 20:29 +0100, Tom Wijsman wrote:
2 > On Fri, 24 Jan 2014 12:10:30 -0600
3 > Steev Klimaszewski <steev@g.o> wrote:
4 >
5 > > The problem isn't finding someone that has everything - we have people
6 > > that test on ARMv5, some that test on ARMv6, we have some that test on
7 > > ARMv7 - until ALL of them are tested, it doesn't get stabled on ARM.
8 > > So again, it just shuffles around the work, and does nothing to
9 > > address the actual problem which is manpower with people that have
10 > > the slower machines to finish their testing. Unless you would like
11 > > to suggest that we maybe just say fuck anyone using a slow machine?
12 >
13 > Consider how packages would rarely get stabilized if we had to wait for
14 > all arches to test them first before adding any stable keyword at all.
15 >
17 Theoretical, again, as always, and not even worth considering because it
18 doesn't reflect reality.
20 > Organize first, then get more manpower; otherwise we say the F-word to
21 > everyone with a faster machine. Joining arm with a slower configuration
22 > and have everyone waiting on you is a working condition to avoid; so,
23 > we could have the slower configuration stabilize at its own pace.
24 >
25 > Would we say F-word to 'em? No, we give them better working conditions.
26 >
28 We're all adults here, you can say fuck. And the entire point of the
29 emails were that the slow arches were bringing us down, and we need to
30 zomg stable fastar fastar fastar.
33 For the record, the ARM team does just fine in stabling things in a
34 reasonable amount of time, so no, we aren't going to change our working
35 methods. The point of this email thread was we all need to stable
36 faster, and slower arches need to just become unstable only, and fuck
37 them. And I'm saying everyone needs to step back because stabling
38 things faster and faster doesn't allow for proper testing.
40 As QA, you should be focusing on making stable, actually stable, not
41 more bleeding edge.


Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: rfc: revisiting our stabilization policy Tom Wijsman <TomWij@g.o>