| 1 |
On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 11:47:32PM +1000, Michael Palimaka wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 07/11/2017 11:06 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 3 |
> > On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 8:59 AM, Michael Palimaka <kensington@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
> >> On 07/11/2017 09:29 AM, Andrew Savchenko wrote: |
| 5 |
> >>> |
| 6 |
> >>> Even if such stabilization is allowed, there are unanswered |
| 7 |
> >>> questions here: |
| 8 |
> >>> - is following seciton 4.1 from wg recommendations is sufficient? |
| 9 |
> >>> - should developer test each stabilization candidate on an |
| 10 |
> >>> up-to-date stable setup? |
| 11 |
> >> |
| 12 |
> >> The guidelines from that document are ripped straight out of the |
| 13 |
> >> devmanual and are a good starting point but rather generic. You can find |
| 14 |
> >> some more detailed suggestions on things to consider while testing on |
| 15 |
> >> the wiki: https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Package_testing |
| 16 |
> >> |
| 17 |
> > |
| 18 |
> > I think that in practice arch teams don't do have the stuff on that |
| 19 |
> > wiki page. Maybe some people do, but back when I was an amd64 AT I |
| 20 |
> > don't think anybody went testing multiple USE combinations for a |
| 21 |
> > typical package. |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> Everything on that page is deliberately a suggestion only, and not |
| 24 |
> necessarily specific to stabilisation testing. |
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
> In the end, we've never been able to reach any consensus on what exactly |
| 27 |
> an arch tester should do. Personally, I think we should just switch to |
| 28 |
> fully-automated, build-only testing for stabilistions unless the |
| 29 |
> maintainer opts otherwise (something that largely happens in practice |
| 30 |
> already). The main risk of breakage of a package moving from testing to |
| 31 |
> stable is always at build time anyway. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
I would not be opposed to this. As a maintainer, I am as guilty as the |
| 34 |
next guy of not filing stable requests or not stabilizing packages. |
Archives