| 1 |
On 03/28/2010 06:04 AM, Tomáš Chvátal wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> Basically you are saying that NONE tested that package on the arch until |
| 4 |
> the stablerequest. That's quite wrong and it should mean that the arch |
| 5 |
> should be ~ only, since they are stabling packages that they first |
| 6 |
> tested the day they stable them. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
Well, keep in mind that if a package is marked ~arch, it is getting |
| 10 |
used, but for the most part it isn't getting used with other packages |
| 11 |
that are stable. So, if your package is ~arch for a period of time that |
| 12 |
gives you strong evidence that it works with openrc, but no evidence as |
| 13 |
to whether it works with baselayout-1, which is what stable users have. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
So, I would argue that for any package to be stabilized on an arch it |
| 16 |
should be tested on that arch on a stable platform. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
amd64 has had the policy that any dev can stabilize if they've tested it |
| 19 |
on a stable amd64 system, and this hasn't really caused problems. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Perhaps we should encourage understaffed arch teams to recruit more arch |
| 22 |
testers if possible? Then any dev could ask an arch tester to test on |
| 23 |
some platform that they don't have access to, and then stabilize |
| 24 |
accordingly? |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
For arch-neutral packages a more liberal policy might be possible, but |
| 27 |
keep in mind that the set of stable packages is not the same across |
| 28 |
archs. So, unless you check carefully you might not be testing the same |
| 29 |
library dependency versions from one stable platform to another, and |
| 30 |
that could cause problems. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
Rich |
Archives