| 1 |
On Mon, 24 Jul 2017 23:22:44 +0000 |
| 2 |
Peter Stuge <peter@×××××.se> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> Thank you for working on this. |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> Sergei Trofimovich wrote: |
| 7 |
> > Can this proposal make a difference and make gentoo better and |
| 8 |
> > easier to work with? |
| 9 |
> > |
| 10 |
> > Does it try to attack the right thing? |
| 11 |
> > |
| 12 |
> > Does it completely miss the point? |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> I hold a perhaps radical view: I would like to simply remove stable. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> I continue to feel that maintaining two worlds (stable+unstable) |
| 17 |
> carries with it an unneccessary cost. |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> Based solely on how excellently unstable (and similar approaches before |
| 20 |
> using Gentoo) works for me in practice, I believe that skipping stable |
| 21 |
> and instead focusing efforts on resolving problems reported in unstable |
| 22 |
> a little quicker would yield a much better end result - and would net |
| 23 |
> positive dev time. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
Good point. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
Stable is used by Gentoo to guard against wide-spread bugs sneaking |
| 28 |
into everyone's systems: SIGSEGVing bootloaders (hard to recover), |
| 29 |
crashing at startup browsers (hard to find a safe point to rollback), |
| 30 |
hosed toolchains (hard to diagnose in time), widespread build breakages |
| 31 |
due to incompatible API (or ABI) changes upstream (hard to recover). |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
It takes time to identify and devise mitigation for new issues. What |
| 34 |
would be the mitigation mechanisims for those when we know something |
| 35 |
is broken? Currently we say STABLE should work better as packages |
| 36 |
there had wider and longer testing. |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
Why would removing stable speed things up? |
| 39 |
Due to smaller amount of bugs to deal with? |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
Do you think Gentoo needs KEYWORDS at all? |
| 42 |
|
| 43 |
Should packages be tracked as "seemingly working" on the arch |
| 44 |
or package.mask is enough? |
| 45 |
|
| 46 |
> > Does it sound fun? |
| 47 |
> |
| 48 |
> Sorry, no, not to me. It sounds like "double" overhead. :\ |
| 49 |
> |
| 50 |
> |
| 51 |
> I consider dev time a precious resource. Devs should need to do as |
| 52 |
> few things as possible, to keep things going, and should be able to |
| 53 |
> immediately reuse as much input from the wider community as possible. |
| 54 |
> |
| 55 |
> More troubleshooting and fixing "hard" problems, less routine work. |
| 56 |
|
| 57 |
Can you clarify what exactly you see currently as a routine work |
| 58 |
on the dev side WRT stable? |
| 59 |
|
| 60 |
Fixing bugs for non-latest packages? |
| 61 |
Tracking manually lists for stabilization? |
| 62 |
Something else? |
| 63 |
|
| 64 |
Thanks! |
| 65 |
|
| 66 |
-- |
| 67 |
|
| 68 |
Sergei |
Archives