| 1 |
On Mon, Sep 05, 2005 at 01:12:54AM +0200, "Kevin F. Quinn" <kevquinn@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> We seem to be heading towards a situation where the x86 arch |
| 3 |
> team do all marking of stuff stable on x86. This I like. |
| 4 |
> Some observations - these may be phrased in the affirmative |
| 5 |
> but please take them as observations/suggestions :) |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> 1) The x86 arch team will need to be large(ish) to keep pace. |
| 8 |
> Herds could nominate one of their members to join the |
| 9 |
> team; that'd get a fair amount of tree coverage quickly. |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> 2) The job of the x86 arch team members should be to arrange, |
| 12 |
> collect and collate testing results, not to do the actual |
| 13 |
> testing themselves. Note this means being a member of the |
| 14 |
> x86 arch team is a management role rather than a development |
| 15 |
> or test role. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
I'm not sure I like this. I think it would be too slow. I'd rather have |
| 18 |
a concept of maintainer arch (the reason I still like the old keyword |
| 19 |
ordering, because there was at least *some* idea of maintainer arch. In |
| 20 |
fact, I used to fiddle the keywords every now and again when I took over |
| 21 |
a package and the maintainer arch changed). Policy, for a long time, has |
| 22 |
been that no arch team should go stable ahead of a package maintainer |
| 23 |
without his approval. This works fine. Now, some packages are going into |
| 24 |
Portage without the x86 keyword (for example, viewglob, which I recently |
| 25 |
committed. I don't have an x86 machine) and a non-x86 maintainer. All |
| 26 |
that we need is an x86 arch team to do the same jobs as other |
| 27 |
architectures: |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
a) Test packages that aren't yet keyworded. |
| 30 |
b) Keep keywords up-to-date -- imlate. Although imlate currently |
| 31 |
compares against x86 by default, scanning x86 against a few other archs |
| 32 |
isn't a major bottleneck. |
| 33 |
c) Keep up with security bugs, with a proper security contact. Tester, I |
| 34 |
believe you're filling this role at the moment? |
| 35 |
d) Possibly arch testers. |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
Maybe I'm seeing this all wrong, but the fact is, the number of packages |
| 38 |
that need x86 arch team lovin' are pretty small, despite the number of |
| 39 |
overall keyworded packages being large. I don't think the x86 arch team |
| 40 |
needs to be very large: I think ten developers is plenty. I just don't |
| 41 |
know what they'd be doing if there were more. |
| 42 |
|
| 43 |
Thoughts? |
| 44 |
|
| 45 |
-- |
| 46 |
Tom Martin, http://dev.gentoo.org/~slarti |
| 47 |
AMD64, net-mail, shell-tools, vim, recruiters |
| 48 |
Gentoo Linux |
Archives