| 1 |
El mié, 12-07-2017 a las 09:13 -0500, William Hubbs escribió: |
| 2 |
> On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 02:30:34PM +0200, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote: |
| 3 |
> > On 07/12/2017 01:59 PM, Michael Palimaka wrote: |
| 4 |
> > > If it's not a stable candidate then why do you use this as an example |
| 5 |
> > > against build testing-based stabilisations? If there are known issues it |
| 6 |
> > > should never reach the arch teams in the first place. |
| 7 |
> > |
| 8 |
> > This might be the crux of things, as long as automatic stabilization is |
| 9 |
> > not triggered by some set of rules (e.g 30 days in ~arch) , and still |
| 10 |
> > requires manual trigger by, preferably, the maintainer there is likely |
| 11 |
> > no issue. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> This doesn't make sense. If I have to trigger automatic stabilization, it |
| 14 |
> isn't automatic any more. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> I think with an appropriate set of rules automatic stabilization would |
| 17 |
> be fine. For example: |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> - foo-2.0 has been in ~arch for 30 days |
| 20 |
> - there are no open bugs against foo-2.0 |
| 21 |
> - an older version of foo is stable |
| 22 |
> - all of the dependencies of foo-2.0 are stable |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
> If those conditions are met, in theory there shouldn't be any problem |
| 25 |
> with stabilizing foo-2.0. |
| 26 |
> |
| 27 |
> If foo-2.0 is not a stabilization candidate, there probably should be an |
| 28 |
> open bug in bugzilla stating why it isn't. |
| 29 |
> |
| 30 |
> Thanks, |
| 31 |
> |
| 32 |
> William |
| 33 |
> |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
Also please note that, when we were filling that automatic bug reports, there |
| 36 |
were still an additional 60 days timeout (I think it was 60 days.. but I don't |
| 37 |
remember if even 90 days) to allow maintainers to react. Only if nothing was |
| 38 |
noted in relevant bug reports, arches were CCed automatically by the script |
Archives