Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Ferris McCormick <fmccor@g.o>
To: Aron Griffis <agriffis@g.o>
Cc: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] proposed solution to arches/stable problem
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2004 16:32:37
Message-Id: Pine.LNX.4.58.0406221537070.6752@lacewing.inforead.com
In Reply to: [gentoo-dev] proposed solution to arches/stable problem by Aron Griffis
1 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
2 Hash: SHA1
3
4 On Tue, 22 Jun 2004, Aron Griffis wrote:
5
6 > Hi guys,
7 >
8 > I've read through most of these arches vs. maintainers threads. It
9 > sounds like Carsten hits the nail on the head with this paragraph:
10 >
11 > But isn't exactly this an issue? You don't know which arch the
12 > package maintainer is using and checking against a single arch
13 > doesn't work, because a maintainer could mark it stable on his
14 > arch for some reason before the package maintainer had done this?
15 > So the first arch maintainer goes ahead, the next one thinks "oh,
16 > seems like the package maintainer marked it stable", gets bitten
17 > and the package maintainer has to resolve resulting problems
18 > (possibly including blame by users)?
19 >
20 > So let's use one more KEYWORD: stable. This KEYWORD would be set by
21 > the package maintainer to indicate her impression of what versions
22 > should be considered stable. This would have the following effects:
23 >
24 > 1. Repoman could check keyword changes, warning arch maintainers
25 > when they mark a version arch-stable that is not marked stable
26 > by the maintainer.
27 >
28 > 2. Bugs can be assigned appropriately:
29 >
30 > stable -- assign maintainer, cc arch team
31 > not stable, arch -- assign arch team, cc maintainer
32 > not stable, ~arch -- assign maintainer, cc arch team
33 >
34 > This makes it clear that arches that choose to move ahead of the
35 > maintainer get to deal with the bugs until the maintainer "catches
36 > up".
37 >
38 > Thoughts?
39 >
40
41 I rather like this approach. I think it addresses the maintainers'
42 concerns, and allows the arch maintainers to proceed if necessary.
43 Maybe your suggestion can help cool off this discussion.
44
45 (And it provides for useful feedback to the maintainer: after all,
46 if she sees her package going stable on all architectures but hers,
47 that's useful information.)
48
49 But, truth in labeling requires me to identify myself as an
50 arch-type (sparc)
51
52 > Regards,
53 > Aron
54 >
55 > --
56 > Aron Griffis
57 > Gentoo Linux Developer
58 >
59 >
60
61 Regards,
62 Ferris
63 - --
64 Ferris McCormick (P44646, MI) <fmccor@g.o>
65 Developer, Gentoo Linux (Sparc)
66 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
67 Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)
68
69 iD8DBQFA2FdzQa6M3+I///cRAiVTAKCCMIsG4Uc46OIQtGyC64Lkkl+DzwCgoZKH
70 wwLesPJ4H0wnWQKqq1vKlkI=
71 =hq95
72 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
73
74 --
75 gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] proposed solution to arches/stable problem Aron Griffis <agriffis@g.o>