[gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] Future of gentoo's stable and unstable trees: what are your thoughts?

[Agostino Sarubbo]

Hello Sergei,

thanks to bring into the topic which nowadays is a common point of discussion 
:)


On Monday 24 July 2017 22:22:23 Sergei Trofimovich wrote:
> 1. lack of automation
I'd summarize the techical steps into:
1) get the list of packages
2) test
3) commit to git
4) write on bugzilla

1 is done by getatoms https://github.com/kensington/bugbot
2 is done by the tester in the manner he prefer
3 no official tool available, I used a modified version of 
https://gitweb.gentoo.org/proj/arch-tools.git/tree/batch-stabilize.py which is 
still based on CVS
4 no official tool available, I used my own bash script which calls pybugz

So, points 3 and 4 needs to be improved, I have the idea on how the script 
should look, but I have no time to do it and no python knowledge. I can assist 
everyone that candidate itself to make the tool/script like I did with 
kensington when he made getatoms.

> 2. lack of manpower

lack of manpower, so in my opinion reduce a bit the workload. I proposed 
something in one of my last mail to -dev, the following refers to the arches 
with very less manpower:
1) Don't file keywordreq, since noone work on them. File directly stablereq.
2) Reduce the number of the stable packages on those arches
3) Make a more visible list (like this list in term of 
visibility:https://qa-reports.gentoo.org/output/gentoo-ci/output.html) of the 
arches-dependent bugs so that everyone can contribute to maintain alive the 
exotic arches.

-- 
Agostino Sarubbo
Gentoo Linux Developer