| 1 |
On 10/04/2016 10:25 AM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 20/08/16 08:30 PM, Daniel Campbell wrote: |
| 3 |
>> On 08/15/2016 12:42 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 4 |
>>> On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 3:30 PM, Andreas K. Hüttel <dilfridge@g.o> wrote: |
| 5 |
>>>> 1) Stabilization is a simpler and much more formalized process compared to |
| 6 |
>>>> normal bug resolution. |
| 7 |
>>>> * There is one version to be stabilized. |
| 8 |
>>>> * One precise package version |
| 9 |
>>> |
| 10 |
>>> Can you clarify what this means? Do you mean that at any time only |
| 11 |
>>> one version of any particular package/slot is marked stable? |
| 12 |
>>> |
| 13 |
>>> That seems like it would be problematic for ranged deps. Granted, |
| 14 |
>>> those are problematic in and of themselves since they can create |
| 15 |
>>> conflicts that are hard to resolve. However, this extends conflicts |
| 16 |
>>> between package you might not want to install at the same time to |
| 17 |
>>> situations where you don't even need both of the conflicting packages. |
| 18 |
>>> |
| 19 |
>> I believe he's just talking about a per-bug or per-stablereq basis. So |
| 20 |
>> each version gets its own opportunity to have bugs surface or |
| 21 |
>> stabilization issues instead of attempting to stabilize a bunch of |
| 22 |
>> versions at once. |
| 23 |
>> |
| 24 |
>> (Correct me if I'm wrong; I don't see the value of a single stable |
| 25 |
>> version for each package and it would create a lot of noise in git log) |
| 26 |
>> |
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
> Even though some projects (mozilla, for instance) do request |
| 29 |
> stabilizations of multiple packages and/or versions in a single go, |
| 30 |
> that doesn't mean we should and I have no issues changing our process |
| 31 |
> to something more atomic. |
| 32 |
> |
| 33 |
> What should be noted here is that if we work towards adopting new |
| 34 |
> tools or methods here, we absolutely need to do so in a way that is |
| 35 |
> beneficial to the workflow of our AT's, especially those that perform |
| 36 |
> large numbers of stabilizations like ago. If this new process doesn't |
| 37 |
> make things at least incrementally easier for them, it needs to be |
| 38 |
> re-thought. |
| 39 |
> |
| 40 |
> |
| 41 |
What sort of things would fit best into AT workflow? Different bug |
| 42 |
states make it easier to filter bugs for ourselves. Is there another |
| 43 |
mechanic you'd rather see? |
| 44 |
|
| 45 |
-- |
| 46 |
Daniel Campbell - Gentoo Developer |
| 47 |
OpenPGP Key: 0x1EA055D6 @ hkp://keys.gnupg.net |
| 48 |
fpr: AE03 9064 AE00 053C 270C 1DE4 6F7A 9091 1EA0 55D6 |
Archives