1 |
On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 7:07 AM, Aaron W. Swenson <titanofold@g.o> wrote: |
2 |
> On 2017-12-14 13:58, Kent Fredric wrote: |
3 |
>> On Wed, 13 Dec 2017 21:58:05 +0100 |
4 |
>> Slightly modified suggestion: |
5 |
>> |
6 |
>> Add a flag called "autostabilize" with [unset], [y], [n] |
7 |
>> |
8 |
>> Default is 'unset', and if found unset after a given time, it flips to |
9 |
>> y and the stable bot gets queued up. |
10 |
>> |
11 |
>> If its set to 'n', then stable bot never does anything. |
12 |
>> |
13 |
>> This way maintainers who want to rush the stablebot on things they |
14 |
>> consider "safe" can get ahead of the queue. |
15 |
> |
16 |
> Well, we kind of have that already with “Runtime testing required” (RTR). |
17 |
> |
18 |
> RTR=no stablereqs are good candidates for automation. |
19 |
> |
20 |
> If everything has been properly handled in the ebuild, then an emerge |
21 |
> should succeed. And, RTR being set to “No” indicates that there aren’t any |
22 |
> tests to perform other than those defined and handled within the ebuild. |
23 |
|
24 |
I'm not sure runtime testing is the only use case for preventing |
25 |
auto-stabilization. |
26 |
|
27 |
The example of KDE/Gnome was brought up where large number of packages |
28 |
need to be stabilized at the same time. I'm not sure this is actually |
29 |
a factor that should prevent auto-stabilization, since these packages |
30 |
should have the correct dependencies and the stabilization system |
31 |
would definitely need to be dependency-aware (which would lead to them |
32 |
being stabilized as a group automatically). If these require runtime |
33 |
testing then they fall into the existing use case. |
34 |
|
35 |
Does anybody actually have a reason to prevent stabilization other |
36 |
than for runtime testing, assuming that stabilization is done in a |
37 |
manner where all dependencies are satisfied at all times? |
38 |
|
39 |
Maybe runtime testing really ought to be the only reason to prevent |
40 |
auto stabilization... |
41 |
|
42 |
-- |
43 |
Rich |