Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: William Hubbs <williamh@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: revisiting our stabilization policy
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2014 19:07:53
Message-Id: 20140115190744.GA2645@laptop.home
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: revisiting our stabilization policy by Thomas Sachau
1 On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 07:33:45PM +0100, Thomas Sachau wrote:
2 > William Hubbs schrieb:
3 >
4 > > Thoughts?
5 > >
6 > > William
7 > >
8 > > [1] http://bugs.gentoo.org/487332
9 > > [2] http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/meeting-logs/20130917-summary.txt
10 > >
11 >
12 > I see 2 cases here:
13 >
14 > 1. specific or all arch teams allow maintainers to stabilize packages on
15 > their own, when they follow the arch team stabilization rules (e.g.
16 > having a system running with stable keywords for testing the package).
17 > This should not reduce the quality of the stable tree (or only to the
18 > small amount, that some arch testers do additional checks the maintainer
19 > does not do). Reading through this thread, it seems like amd64 and x86
20 > arch teams already use this policy. This sounds like a reasonable
21 > agreement, so i am supporting this too.
22 >
23 > 2. for arches with no such agreement or where the maintainer does not
24 > have the needed hardware to test, no action for a certain amount of time
25 > usually means, that the arch team is overloaded with work so the only
26 > short- to mid-term solution is to reduce the amount of work resulting in
27 > smaller amount of stable packages. So i am voting for maintainers
28 > dropping stable keywords after a certain amount of time with no actions
29 > (maybe with some notice beforehand). This might result in a mixed arch
30 > user setup by default, but imho it is still better to have a smaller
31 > stable set of core packages and testing packages on top then having
32 > either everything on testing or broken/untested/unsupported packages,
33 > which are still claimed to be the opposite with the stable keyword.
34 >
35 > short summary:
36 >
37 > -in agreement with arch teams, following stabilization policy and having
38 > the needed hardware, maintainers should be able to add stable keywords
39 > themselves
40 > -if either agreement of arch team or needed hardware is missing,
41 > keywords should be dropped, so that after some time the workload matches
42 > the abilities of the arch team again.
43
44 When you say "drop keywords" do you mean:
45
46 1) revert the old version back to ~arch or
47 2) remove the old version.
48
49 As a maintainer, I would rather do 2, because I do not want to backport
50 fixes to the old version.
51
52 William

Attachments

File name MIME type
signature.asc application/pgp-signature

Replies