1 |
On 07/10/2017 10:02 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: |
2 |
> On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 3:57 PM, Andrew Savchenko <bircoph@g.o> wrote: |
3 |
>> |
4 |
>> On Mon, 10 Jul 2017 13:49:40 -0400 Rich Freeman wrote: |
5 |
>> |
6 |
>>> In the case of amd64 we already |
7 |
>>> encourage individual package maintainers to stabilize their own |
8 |
>>> packages |
9 |
>> |
10 |
>> Huh? Have our rules changed? As per devmanual[1] and GLEP 40[2] |
11 |
>> stabilization must be carried out by arch teams, unless a special |
12 |
>> arrangement is done between a developer and a team. |
13 |
>> |
14 |
> |
15 |
> The docs are probably out of date - I'm not sure if the policy is |
16 |
> documented anywhere. However it has been a fairly longstanding policy |
17 |
> at this point that amd64 allows individual maintainers to stabilize |
18 |
> their own packages. |
19 |
> |
20 |
|
21 |
We looked after it for wg-stable (which died out as a result of rather |
22 |
low participation, maybe it should be rebooted if people feel like |
23 |
discussing this again), there isn't any authoritative policy allowing |
24 |
it, GLEP:40 explicitly removes the possibility to do it for x86. That |
25 |
said, for a number of packages maintainer stabilization can likely make |
26 |
sense, the opposite view is four-eyes principle, it is always good to |
27 |
have someone else build-test etc, but this is greatly helped by |
28 |
tinderboxing efforts (thanks toralf) etc. So one likely output if |
29 |
wg-stable is to come up with something would be a replacement GLEP for |
30 |
40 that matches the current state, and also kernel auto-stabiliation (as |
31 |
discussed in [section 3.2 (Kernel)] |
32 |
|
33 |
References: |
34 |
[section 3.2 (Kernel)] |
35 |
https://download.sumptuouscapital.com/gentoo/wg-stable/main.pdf |
36 |
|
37 |
-- |
38 |
Kristian Fiskerstrand |
39 |
OpenPGP keyblock reachable at hkp://pool.sks-keyservers.net |
40 |
fpr:94CB AFDD 3034 5109 5618 35AA 0B7F 8B60 E3ED FAE3 |