Re: [gentoo-dev] About reducing or even removing stable tree for some arches

[Joshua Kinard]

On 02/16/2015 10:36, Anthony G. Basile wrote:
> On 02/16/15 08:34, Pacho Ramos wrote:
>> Hello
>>
>> Every day I am hitting tons of blockers stabilizations and keywording
>> requests for alpha, sparc, ia64, ppc and ppc64.
>
> The powerpc team figured we'd deal with this by being "lax" about
> keywording/stabilization and catch problems in subsequent bug reports to
> increase our throughput.  We didn't want to drop the entire arch to ~.   The
> team hasn't met since last august, and we should discuss this again.  But we
> decided then that ago would do stabilization and the rest of us would do
> keywording.
>
> As far as I'm concerned, I'm happy to drop all desktop-ish packages to ~arch,
> but keep the more server-ish, system-ish packages as stable.  Controlling
> @system with stable keywords is very useful for building stages so I'm
> reluctant to give that up.  So maybe we can just adopt the policy that any
> ppc/ppc64 package which depends on X can be dropped to ~.

:: puts on a flame-retardant suit ::

Once we complete the git migration, why not take a second look on using a
stable/testing/unstable (or -RELEASE/-STABLE/-CURRENT) system used by Debian
and FreeBSD?  That should be entirely doable under a git tree versus CVS.  It
would require beefing releng up again and a whole host of other issues.

Keep the core git tree constantly rolling forward, have a dedicated branch get
cut say, once a year (or less -- Debian is ~18mo?), another group of devs works
on stabilizing that (and periodically cherrypicking from the master branch),
and when the time comes, totally freeze that for security revs only by a
smaller group of devs?

-- 
Joshua Kinard
Gentoo/MIPS
kumba@g.o
4096R/D25D95E3 2011-03-28

"The past tempts us, the present confuses us, the future frightens us.  And our
lives slip away, moment by moment, lost in that vast, terrible in-between."

--Emperor Turhan, Centauri Republic