| 1 |
On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 02:21:57 +0200 |
| 2 |
foser <foser@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On Sun, 2004-06-20 at 21:31 +0200, Guy Martin wrote: |
| 5 |
> > I've been running it 1 week with ~5Gb of dl on two box before |
| 6 |
> > marking it stable and it still never crashed but I had some minor |
| 7 |
> > problems with the current x86 stable one. |
| 8 |
> > |
| 9 |
> > So, I did *extensive* QA on this packages as I do for every other |
| 10 |
> > package. When I say extensive, that means I do everything wich I |
| 11 |
> > have the time and the ressources for. I don't have thousands of |
| 12 |
> > users behind me to test stuff. |
| 13 |
> > |
| 14 |
> > Also, I marked this directly stable because I don't have time and |
| 15 |
> > manpower to first mark it ~hppa and then hppa. For thoses |
| 16 |
> > non-critical packages, that's the way I proceed. Give me 10 more |
| 17 |
> > devs, 50000 users some fast box and I'll apply to policy regarding |
| 18 |
> > the testing stuff for all packages. |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> So you do agree that arch maintainers do not have the same time spend |
| 21 |
> to attend to a certain package |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Yes, we are ~3 working on the hppa port. How could we ? |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
> and you weren't aware of the fact that |
| 26 |
> the >2.5.16 version was not marked stable for a reason ? |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
For this particular packages, I didn't really checked because it's ocaml |
| 29 |
and the code is compiled by arch specific stuff in ocaml. In this |
| 30 |
particular case, I had to port the hppa generation code of ocaml to |
| 31 |
linux which wasn't suffering of any particular bug (according the ocaml |
| 32 |
BTS). |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
> Both really are statements to my plea. For you the frontline testing |
| 36 |
> by another arch with userbase should keep you out of the wind for most |
| 37 |
> bugs. |
| 38 |
> |
| 39 |
> Another interesting point you raise here is that usually the |
| 40 |
> 'maintainers arch' (mostly x86 atm) does have the backing of a large |
| 41 |
> userbase to test, which will also improve QA. |
| 42 |
|
| 43 |
That's how I see it for most packages. The script I coded |
| 44 |
(http://dev.gentoo.org/~gmsoft/tools/imlate) checks stable version of |
| 45 |
a packages on a given arch against the stable version on another arch |
| 46 |
(x86 per default). |
| 47 |
|
| 48 |
The point is that this list is only a starting point for me. For |
| 49 |
packages which I'm not very familiar with, I follow x86 unless I got a |
| 50 |
good reason to do otherwise (bug reported for hppa only, ...). |
| 51 |
|
| 52 |
For other packages, I prefer and sometimes must use another stable |
| 53 |
version than the x86 one. |
| 54 |
|
| 55 |
So it's a case by case aproach. |
| 56 |
|
| 57 |
-- |
| 58 |
Guy Martin |
| 59 |
Gentoo Linux - HPPA port Lead / IPv6 team |
| 60 |
Lug Charleroi (Belgium) |
Archives