Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: William Hubbs <williamh@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: revisiting our stabilization policy
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2014 15:30:44
Message-Id: 20140115153036.GA1433@laptop.home
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: revisiting our stabilization policy by Sergey Popov
1 On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 03:30:39PM +0400, Sergey Popov wrote:
2 > 15.01.2014 01:37, William Hubbs пишет:
3 > > All,
4 > >
5 > > It is becoming more and more obvious that we do not have enough manpower
6 > > on the arch teams, even some of the ones we consider major arch's, to
7 > > keep up with stabilization requests. For example, there is this bug [1],
8 > > which is blocking the stabilization of several important packages.
9 >
10 > And by the way, the only arches left there are ppc and ppc64, which are
11 > NOT major ones.
13 Sparc is also still on that bug, and according to the council decision I
14 sited, these arch's are still treated like major arch's.
16 Wrt your comment about x86 and amd64 having agreements that maintainers
17 can stabilize packages on those arch's, I thought amd64 did, but I
18 didn't know about x86.
20 Formal policy says that all stabilizations must be done by arch teams
21 unless you have special arrangements with them [1], so my questions
22 still stand.
24 1. Should we make it policy that maintainers can stabilize packages on
25 arch's they have access to?
27 2. See Rich's message in this thread for my other concern; he spells it
28 out pretty well -- what should we do about architectures the maintainer
29 does not have access to?
31 3. Also, another interesting question has come up in this thread, that of
32 non-binary packages. Should we give maintainers the option of
33 stabilizing them on all arch's themselves?
35 William
37 [1]


File name MIME type
signature.asc application/pgp-signature


Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: revisiting our stabilization policy Sergey Popov <pinkbyte@g.o>