| 1 |
On Wednesday 21 January 2004 06:13, foser wrote: |
| 2 |
> On the other hand it is just a fact that a lot of ~arch upgrading |
| 3 |
> happens trough stumbling over it (so a lot of packages stay longer than |
| 4 |
> needed in ~arch), there have been some efforts to attack this problem, |
| 5 |
> but not too successful. This is an issue that needs attention and ideas |
| 6 |
> on how to solve this in a satisfactory manner. Since you seem to |
| 7 |
Ideas? me has ideas :). |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
Seriously, I remember a discussion some time ago about starting a "bump to |
| 10 |
stable" days, a la bug crunching days we have now. The proposal was for doing |
| 11 |
it monthly, and I remember countering it with the argument about going |
| 12 |
biweekly, - to match the "official testing duration" we have in policy. This |
| 13 |
way all the devs will have a clear "bump day" when they devote an hour or so |
| 14 |
to the bumps and don't care about this for two more week to come |
| 15 |
afterwards :). |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
The procedure can be very basic as well. Say "newer" bugs (processed within |
| 18 |
last two weeks) are marked as candidates (may be even virtually, by looking |
| 19 |
at the dates? Although given enough interest it may be usefull to have |
| 20 |
another bug resolution marking..) and former candidates are marked stable. |
| 21 |
All of course provided that there were no problems reported. In the latter |
| 22 |
case (problems) they are reopened. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
Sorry about a letter-by-letter spell of obvious, but I thought it would be |
| 25 |
good to visualize, so there is a clear picture, bringing the hope that this |
| 26 |
gets addressed at some point :). |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
George |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
-- |
| 32 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives