Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: dropping redundant stable keywords

[Tom Wijsman]

On Tue, 4 Feb 2014 21:03:20 +0000
"Steven J. Long" <slong@××××××××××××××××××.uk> wrote:

> Tom Wijsman wrote:
>
> > They are less work; since it lets the slower arches move their work
> > to bugs of important packages that need their attention, instead of
> > bugs of non-important packages were the stabilization isn't really
> > necessary.
>
> Huh? The slower arch is not keeping up with stabilisation. How can the
> stabilisation suddenly be unnecessary? If it is not needed, there is
> no problem, and we wouldn't be having this discussion.

It is still necessary, as clear from the difference in importance.

> Much better for the arch in question to field the bug, than tell the
> user there is no problem, and we don't care. That way you can get the
> user involved in stabilisation and AT via that bug, instead of turning
> them away with priggishness.

Problems should be visible instead of hidden, as well as resolved. A
move in work means a move in work, further implications are yours...

> > > The arguments and headaches at the user, bug
> > > and AT sides are causing more work (or detracting from real work)
> > > too.
> >
> > Yes, the less work that we can do, the more work the user has to do
> > as a natural consequence; discussions like these are there to
> > prevent those headaches way in advance, as we can proper adapt
> > and/or respond to the situation. And if needed, bring out news such
> > that the user is well informed. Not sure which argumentation this
> > is about though.
>
> Perfectly simple: instead of having this row repeatedly, or borking
> archs, let's use the solution proposed by the ARM AT: provide a
> technical reason why it won't work, rather than a conceptual problem
> with the "hack".

Searching for such technical reasoning is a leeway for hacking & hoping.

Solutions were provided, a policy has been made; we are exactly
avoiding to row repeatedly, and this is yet another solution I propose:

Provide a technical reason why it will work?

You further demonstrate this solution that I propose we should use:

> The history of computing is littered with hacks that turned out to
> shed new light on a problem: it's called exploring the problem
> domain. It's only when you have idiomatic knowledge of the
> language/tools *and* the specific domain, that you can envision
> oddball solutions and more importantly _know_ that they will work
> (perhaps with a bit of tweaking.)

It is called prototyping.

> <snip>
> >  [1] Quality Assurance / Policies / Dropping Stable KEYWORDs
> >  https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Quality_Assurance/Policies#Dropping_Stable_KEYWORDs
>
> That's not a policy: it's a two-line statement of intent.

It is policy, as it permits implementation of that intent; at the very
least, it is a policy change that allows you something you were disallowed.

> Further, the solution steev brought up is much much better than
> simply dropping the ebuild.
>
> > > Just keep the old ebuilds as useful metadata, subject to the usual
> > > version-control cycle, but iff it's causing you problems and you
> > > want to drop it, mark it with: "-* slowe rarch" so we can script
> > > off it and automate bug-handling etc. so your life is easier, as
> > > well as the archs in question (and their users.)
> >
> > As stated before, -* means something way different; it is a
> > suggestion that does not fit this thread. Like before, did you mean
> > "slower arch"?
>
> No, it's an example, like foo bar, but indicating that we're talking
> about slower archs, and likely more than one in some instances. As
> before did you mean to raise a technical objection with clear
> explanation of what and why it would break?
>
> > And even if you did, we have then already been using this practice
> > for a long while; it is different from the problem that was brought
> > up here.
>
> Yes, yes, you can keep going on about the "conceptual difficulty", but
> the simple fact is the solution works, or it wouldn't have been
> raised. steev's idiomatic knowledge and solution wins, IMNSHO.

"The -* keyword is special. It is used to indicate package versions
which are not worth trying to test on unlisted archs." [1]

You can keep rehashing about "winning", but all it does is break policy.

 [1]: http://devmanual.gentoo.org/keywording

-- 
With kind regards,

Tom Wijsman (TomWij)
Gentoo Developer

E-mail address  : TomWij@g.o
GPG Public Key  : 6D34E57D
GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2  ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D