| 1 |
On 21 May 2013 19:32, "Paweł Hajdan, Jr." <phajdan.jr@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 5/21/13 6:38 AM, Thomas Sachau wrote: |
| 3 |
>> And if a maintainer is not responding within 30 days, you can ping him |
| 4 |
>> or, without a response, try to get a different maintainer. Just assuming |
| 5 |
>> that a stable request is ok without a maintainer response is really not |
| 6 |
>> a good idea. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> Thomas, this effort is going on for over a year now (and has been |
| 9 |
> discussed on gentoo-dev). If it's only now you've noticed, maybe the sky |
| 10 |
> isn't falling after all. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> Note the criteria for the bugs to be filed: |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> 1. No open bugs for the package. |
| 15 |
> 2. No bugs (including closed) for that particular version of the package |
| 16 |
> (so for example closing the stabilization bug will prevent it from being |
| 17 |
> opened again; it also takes into account bugs closed with e.g. NEEDINFO, |
| 18 |
> which can be real issues). |
| 19 |
> 3. At least 30 days in tree. |
| 20 |
> 4. No repoman errors when trying to stabilize it (so all deps already |
| 21 |
> stable). |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> Also, arch teams are responsible for at least shallow (compile) testing |
| 24 |
> of the package, and ideally smoke testing on run and possibly testing |
| 25 |
> with various USE flag combinations and reverse dependencies testing (the |
| 26 |
> latter is a regular part of my stabilization workflow, and the script |
| 27 |
> for that is part of the same suite that files bugs). |
| 28 |
> |
| 29 |
> Note that there is a tradeoff here: I really started the stabilizations |
| 30 |
> after I've noticed how many bugs are fixed in ~arch that still affect |
| 31 |
> stable, but the fixing version didn't get stabilized. This is the |
| 32 |
> downside of an opt-in approach, since inactive maintainers are not going |
| 33 |
> to opt-in. |
| 34 |
> |
| 35 |
> Finally, everyone from metadata.xml is CC-ed. There is no "trying a |
| 36 |
> different maintainer" - all of them are there since day one. |
| 37 |
> |
| 38 |
> Please let me know if you still have concerns - ideally back them with |
| 39 |
> data and actual cases showing problems (or scenarios that can reasonably |
| 40 |
> be likely) instead of just saying it _might_ lead to breakages. Anything |
| 41 |
> _might_ lead to breakages, including taking no action here and allowing |
| 42 |
> bugs to be not fixed for stable. :) |
| 43 |
> |
| 44 |
> Paweł |
| 45 |
> |
| 46 |
> |
| 47 |
|
| 48 |
I'd rather not see this process changes, because it has helped |
| 49 |
bringing the stable tree up2date. However, given that *a few* people |
| 50 |
don't like it, I suggest you don't file bugs for packages owned by |
| 51 |
them. |
| 52 |
|
| 53 |
-- |
| 54 |
Regards, |
| 55 |
Markos Chandras - Gentoo Linux Developer |
| 56 |
http://dev.gentoo.org/~hwoarang |
Archives