Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: William Hubbs <williamh@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Cc: rich0@g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] New Working Group established to evaluate the stable tree
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2016 20:01:43
Message-Id: 20160815200105.GA22318@whubbs1.gaikai.biz
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] New Working Group established to evaluate the stable tree by Rich Freeman
1 On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 03:27:43PM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote:
2 > On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 3:12 PM, William Hubbs <williamh@g.o> wrote:
3 > > On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 02:33:52PM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote:
4 > >> I'd rather see maintainers just yank the last stable package and break
5 > >> the depgraph and let the arch teams deal with the cleanup than have
6 > >> them mark stuff stable without any testing at all. Or build a script
7 > >> that does the keyword cleanup for them. De-keywording late stable
8 > >> requests is a solution that is self-correcting. As packages are
9 > >> reduced from the stable set then there are fewer stable requests and
10 > >> the arch team is better able to focus on the ones they deem important.
11 > >> Throwing more packages in stable that aren't actually stable just
12 > >> makes that problem worse, and destroys whatever value the stable
13 > >> keyword had on the arch. For small arch teams they really should be
14 > >> focusing their time on core packages.
15 > >
16 > > Rich, This was my original thinking about this issue. It turned out to
17 > > be more controversial than I originally thought -- folks told me that
18 > > stable tree users expect stability above all, so breaking the depgraph
19 > > is unacceptable, so I'm just trying to find something that is more
20 > > palletable.
21 > >
22 >
23 > Well, I wasn't suggesting that breaking the depgraph is great. Just
24 > that I think it is better than calling things stable which aren't.
25 >
26 > A better approach is a script that does the keyword cleanup.
27 >
28 > So, if you want to reap an ebuild you run "destabilize
29 > foo-1.2.ebuild". It searches the tree for all reverse deps and
30 > removes stable keywords from those. Then you commit all of that in
31 > one commit.
32
33 This works unless you are talking about packages in @system.
34 I do see core packages on these arches also languish in ~ for months
35 with open stable requests.
36
37 The only way to handle one of those would be to remove the old version
38 and let their deptree break until they catch up.
39
40 William

Attachments

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

Replies