Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Christian Faulhammer <opfer@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: [gentoo-dev] Re: Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for March
Date: Sat, 01 Mar 2008 12:54:22
Message-Id: 20080301135621.128ebfd8@gentoo.org
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for March by Richard Freeman
1 Hi,
2
3 Richard Freeman <rich0@g.o>:
4
5 > Raúl Porcel wrote:
6 > >
7 > > So it would be cool if they accepted help from other devs who don't
8 > > have an amd64 system but have access to one and can test stuff. Cla
9 > > is willing to help.
10 [...]
11 > I don't keyword a package stable unless I've done at least a moderate
12 > amount of testing on the package to ensure that it works. If a
13 > package looks simple but obscure I might go ahead and install it and
14 > play with it, but I'd probably never keyword an emacs package stable,
15 > since I don't ever use emacs and I won't pretend that all there is to
16 > it is installing it and typing "hello world" and figuring out how to
17 > quit.
18
19 Hah, got you. Emacs team has a collection of test plans, that are
20 understandable and have a step-by-step guide to the package. You may
21 not have noticed because at the moment, Emacs teams handles nearly all
22 stabilisation requests itself on amd64.
23 Yes, testing is crucial, but it eases your pain if you have an arch
24 tester going over it beforehand and amd64 is well equipped with that.
25
26 > If there are folks out there who can test on amd64 systems then I'm
27 > sure that the amd64 team would look forward to their help (just
28 > contact kingtaco about it) - either by arch testing or perhaps by
29 > just keywording as appropriate. However, we do need to be careful
30 > about just going on a hunt to close bugs - "if it builds then it's
31 > stable" isn't really a policy I think we want to follow. As an amd64
32 > user as well as a dev I know that I'd rather be a little further
33 > behind on package foo (with the ability to accept ~amd64 on it if I
34 > wanted to) than to have packages breaking every other week because
35 > somebody keyworded them just because it compiled and didn't have any
36 > glaring faults.
37
38 There are dozens of bugs out there for amd64, that are no
39 stabilisation requests but contain a patch or simple requests that
40 could be handled in a fast way....problem is, nobody does. Don't get
41 Raul or myself wrong, we are not here to accuse someone or do a mud
42 fight. We care and are worried about the state of amd64, but do not
43 want to lower the work invested by some members of the team, so don't
44 take anything personal or try to justify by all means.
45 As a matter of fact amd64 has some broken packages in the stable tree
46 where bugs exist and noone seems to care.
47
48 > I think we also need better coordination across gentoo regarding when
49 > packages should be stabilized. I've seen amd64 CC'ed on stablereq
50 > bugs filed by end users, and arch teams keywording them left and
51 > right, and there is no sign that the package maintainer wants the
52 > package stabilized. I know that I'd be annoyed if arch teams
53 > stabilized a package that I maintained and I didn't intend for it to
54 > become stable for whatever reason. At the very least maintainers
55 > should be contacted before packages go stable - and they should
56 > probably document their intent in STABLEREQ bugs before everybody
57 > goes crazy closing them out.
58
59 This happens seldomly...and normally stabilisations are assigned to
60 the maintainer which should react and cc arches. Only
61 maintainer-wanted is directly cced with arches by bug wranglers. So
62 such problems occur if developers/trusted users create the stabilisation
63 bug.
64
65 > I think that if we have the right policies then we'll be where we
66 > want to be. Personally, it doesn't concern me a great deal that
67 > there are tons of bugs open on an arch in and of itself (although
68 > blockers and security bugs are a different matter). I'd rather that
69 > then keyword something stable anytime one person (usually not the
70 > maintainer) asks us to. And users who feel like they're being held
71 > up should feel free to ping a dev to talk about it - and comments by
72 > users and maintainers in bugs indicating how stable a package really
73 > is make people like me more warm and fuzzy about keywording it
74 > without as much personal testing.
75
76 Again, this is not a question of not testing but a question of getting
77 more work done (by more people). Sometimes I do amd64 bugs although I
78 am not on the team, my only test system is a remote machine with
79 hardened kernel (miranda), but I do test the packages I mark stable.
80
81 V-Li
82
83 --
84 Christian Faulhammer, Gentoo Lisp project
85 <URL:http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/lisp/>, #gentoo-lisp on FreeNode
86
87 <URL:http://www.faulhammer.org/>

Attachments

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

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for March "Raúl Porcel" <armin76@g.o>