1 |
On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 02:34:50PM +0100, Pacho Ramos wrote: |
2 |
> Hello |
3 |
> |
4 |
> Every day I am hitting tons of blockers stabilizations and keywording |
5 |
> requests for alpha, sparc, ia64, ppc and ppc64. |
6 |
> |
7 |
> Again, I would suggest to either decrease radically the amount of stable |
8 |
> packages of some of that arches or even make them testing only. |
9 |
> |
10 |
> For reducing their stable tree, my suggestion would be to either keep |
11 |
> their current stage3 packages stable or stage3+some concrete (and |
12 |
> public) list of packages. |
13 |
> |
14 |
> Currently situation is not good at all as we rely on mostly one member |
15 |
> needing to handle most stable work and, if any stablereq has any issue |
16 |
> leading to it not being able to be handled in an "automated" way, the |
17 |
> bug gets blocked for months. Also, keywording work is mostly stalled on |
18 |
> this arches as it's done by even less people. |
19 |
> |
20 |
> The current policy of maintainers dropping keywords after 90 days is |
21 |
> simply not applied because it leads up to that maintainer needing to |
22 |
> kill himself that keyword and ALL the reverse deps keywords and, then, |
23 |
> all that effort should probably be replaced by making the opposite, I |
24 |
> mean, reducing the stable tree of that arches to a minimum and moving |
25 |
> all the other packages to testing. The main advantage of this is that it |
26 |
> needs maybe more effort in one round but it solves the problem for the |
27 |
> future. On the other hand trying to kill keywords of a package *and all |
28 |
> its reverse deps* requires a lot of work every time the problem appears. |
29 |
|
30 |
I think the cleanest way forward would be to mark these arch's dev or |
31 |
exp in the profiles. That way, maintainers don't have to worry about |
32 |
them and the people maintaining the arch's can determine what needs to |
33 |
be stabilized at their own paces. |
34 |
|
35 |
William |