Re: #wg-stable: Reservations about a "STABLE" & "NeedsStable" bugzilla keywords (re: [gentoo-dev] New Working Group established to evaluate the stable tree)

[Ian Stakenvicius]

On 20/08/16 08:30 PM, Daniel Campbell wrote:
> On 08/15/2016 12:42 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
>> On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 3:30 PM, Andreas K. Hüttel <dilfridge@g.o> wrote:
>>> 1) Stabilization is a simpler and much more formalized process compared to
>>> normal bug resolution.
>>> * There is one version to be stabilized.
>>> * One precise package version
>>
>> Can you clarify what this means?  Do you mean that at any time only
>> one version of any particular package/slot is marked stable?
>>
>> That seems like it would be problematic for ranged deps.  Granted,
>> those are problematic in and of themselves since they can create
>> conflicts that are hard to resolve.  However, this extends conflicts
>> between package you might not want to install at the same time to
>> situations where you don't even need both of the conflicting packages.
>>
> I believe he's just talking about a per-bug or per-stablereq basis. So
> each version gets its own opportunity to have bugs surface or
> stabilization issues instead of attempting to stabilize a bunch of
> versions at once.
>
> (Correct me if I'm wrong; I don't see the value of a single stable
> version for each package and it would create a lot of noise in git log)
>

Even though some projects (mozilla, for instance) do request
stabilizations of multiple packages and/or versions in a single go,
that doesn't mean we should and I have no issues changing our process
to something more atomic.

What should be noted here is that if we work towards adopting new
tools or methods here, we absolutely need to do so in a way that is
beneficial to the workflow of our AT's, especially those that perform
large numbers of stabilizations like ago.  If this new process doesn't
make things at least incrementally easier for them, it needs to be
re-thought.