Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Kristian Fiskerstrand <k_f@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: #wg-stable: Reservations about a "STABLE" & "NeedsStable" bugzilla keywords (re: [gentoo-dev] New Working Group established to evaluate the stable tree)
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2016 13:25:44
In Reply to: Re: #wg-stable: Reservations about a "STABLE" & "NeedsStable" bugzilla keywords (re: [gentoo-dev] New Working Group established to evaluate the stable tree) by Dirkjan Ochtman
1 On 08/15/2016 03:15 PM, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote:
2 > On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 3:03 PM, Kristian Fiskerstrand <k_f@g.o> wrote:
3 >> Could you please elaborate a bit? In particular from perspective of (i)
4 >> integration into current workflow, (ii) complexity in application
5 >> maintenance/hosting (iii) cost/benefit considerations
6 >
7 > Well, I think stabilization (and, to some extent, keywording) is a
9 Thank you for elaborating
11 > very different process from handling bugs and feature requests. It
12 > would be great if we had tooling that focuses on these instead of
13 > trying to fit into the bug tracker. It would entail a different
15 I'm not sure I agree on this point, my perspective is the state of the
16 stable tree is exactly dependent on it being considered as part of the
17 regular workflow of developers, which has at least been implied in the
18 past[0] - resulting in e.g InVCS.
20 Part of the discussion in that case is the number of developers running
21 full testing (~arch) and might not care too much about the state of the
22 stable tree, and having stabilization as part of the specific workflow
23 will help the state of the stable tree by requiring the developer to
24 care about it.
26 > workflow, obviously, but I think that's a plus in this case, and we
27 > could make sure we have the command-line tools to make it easy to work
28 > with.
29 >
31 as long as it doesn't become a disconnect to maintainer's
32 responsibilities. The state of stable tree isn't a separate issue that
33 belongs with the arch teams; it is an integrated and important part of
34 maintaining any package to begin with.
36 > Development/maintenance/hosting is an issue, though it's a bit hard to
37 > say something definitive about it before there's more of a plan of how
38 > such a tool could work. It's enough of a pain for me that I could see
39 > myself investing some time in development.
40 >
41 > Perhaps some kind of middle ground would be to handle this stuff in a
42 > separate Bugzilla product, and then making sure we have some tooling
43 > around that to better present the data.
45 See comment in previous chapter
47 >
48 > Cheers,
49 >
50 > Dirkjan
51 >
53 Notes:
54 [0] but I don't recall any specific policies / council meeting summaries
55 on it offhand and don't have time to search but feel free to provide it
56 if easily available to anyone - the last discussion I see on this was
60 --
61 Kristian Fiskerstrand
62 OpenPGP certificate reachable at hkp://
63 fpr:94CB AFDD 3034 5109 5618 35AA 0B7F 8B60 E3ED FAE3


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