| 1 |
On 07/11/2017 09:29 AM, Andrew Savchenko wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Mon, 10 Jul 2017 22:17:34 +0200 Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote: |
| 3 |
>> On 07/10/2017 10:02 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 4 |
>>> On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 3:57 PM, Andrew Savchenko <bircoph@g.o> wrote: |
| 5 |
>>>> |
| 6 |
>>>> On Mon, 10 Jul 2017 13:49:40 -0400 Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 7 |
>>>> |
| 8 |
>>>>> In the case of amd64 we already |
| 9 |
>>>>> encourage individual package maintainers to stabilize their own |
| 10 |
>>>>> packages |
| 11 |
>>>> |
| 12 |
>>>> Huh? Have our rules changed? As per devmanual[1] and GLEP 40[2] |
| 13 |
>>>> stabilization must be carried out by arch teams, unless a special |
| 14 |
>>>> arrangement is done between a developer and a team. |
| 15 |
>>>> |
| 16 |
>>> |
| 17 |
>>> The docs are probably out of date - I'm not sure if the policy is |
| 18 |
>>> documented anywhere. However it has been a fairly longstanding policy |
| 19 |
>>> at this point that amd64 allows individual maintainers to stabilize |
| 20 |
>>> their own packages. |
| 21 |
>>> |
| 22 |
>> |
| 23 |
>> We looked after it for wg-stable (which died out as a result of rather |
| 24 |
>> low participation, maybe it should be rebooted if people feel like |
| 25 |
>> discussing this again), there isn't any authoritative policy allowing |
| 26 |
>> it, GLEP:40 explicitly removes the possibility to do it for x86. That |
| 27 |
>> said, for a number of packages maintainer stabilization can likely make |
| 28 |
>> sense, the opposite view is four-eyes principle, it is always good to |
| 29 |
>> have someone else build-test etc, but this is greatly helped by |
| 30 |
>> tinderboxing efforts (thanks toralf) etc. So one likely output if |
| 31 |
>> wg-stable is to come up with something would be a replacement GLEP for |
| 32 |
>> 40 that matches the current state, and also kernel auto-stabiliation (as |
| 33 |
>> discussed in [section 3.2 (Kernel)] |
| 34 |
> |
| 35 |
> So, am I understanding this correctly that right now a package |
| 36 |
> stabilization by maintainer without explicit permit from an arch |
| 37 |
> team will be the violation of active and approved policies? |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
As Rich pointed out, amd64 team has long allowed maintainers to perform |
| 40 |
their own stabilisations. I've asked x86 team about this in the past, |
| 41 |
and they too were OK with maintainer stabilisations. |
| 42 |
|
| 43 |
It would be nice to improve documentation of this, but it is certainly |
| 44 |
not a policy violation just because some ancient document was never updated. |
| 45 |
|
| 46 |
> Despite the maintainer-driven stabilization seems to be "a fairly |
| 47 |
> longstanding policy" I'm reluctant to do such stabilization myself, |
| 48 |
> because anyone may point out later that such action is a violation |
| 49 |
> of the written policies and I will have nothing to defend me. |
| 50 |
> |
| 51 |
> Even if such stabilization is allowed, there are unanswered |
| 52 |
> questions here: |
| 53 |
> - is following seciton 4.1 from wg recommendations is sufficient? |
| 54 |
> - should developer test each stabilization candidate on an |
| 55 |
> up-to-date stable setup? |
| 56 |
|
| 57 |
The guidelines from that document are ripped straight out of the |
| 58 |
devmanual and are a good starting point but rather generic. You can find |
| 59 |
some more detailed suggestions on things to consider while testing on |
| 60 |
the wiki: https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Package_testing |
Archives