1 |
On Thu, 2005-09-22 at 19:04 -0400, Mark Loeser wrote: |
2 |
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
3 |
> > On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 18:36:18 -0400 Mark Loeser <halcy0n@g.o> |
4 |
> > wrote: |
5 |
> > | I'm sending this email because I have seen some packages marked stable |
6 |
> > | on x86 without the permission of the x86 team, and would like the |
7 |
> > | people who can mark stable for x86 to contact us. |
8 |
> > |
9 |
> > Would the x86 team prefer it if lots of people made arrangements of |
10 |
> > this kind, or would they rather handle the majority of keywording |
11 |
> > themselves? I'd imagine there are quite a few of developers who have |
12 |
> > the hardware to do x86 testing, but who would not want to step on the |
13 |
> > x86 team's toes... |
14 |
> > |
15 |
> |
16 |
> For the time being, I believe we would like to make arrangements with a |
17 |
> lot of people, instead of being in the dark about who is doing what. |
18 |
> This way we could atleast easily know what is probably being neglected |
19 |
> by us. |
20 |
|
21 |
Neither of Ciaran's solutions leave us "in the dark", at all. What he |
22 |
is saying is would we rather half the developers tell us "I want to |
23 |
stable my own stuff" or would we rather be like "We would prefer to |
24 |
stable everything, but will make allowances for a few developers"? |
25 |
|
26 |
Personally, I think we should try to take care of the bulk of |
27 |
stabilization requests, otherwise we lose the QA benefits of having an |
28 |
arch team that is aware of what is stabilized on the architecture. It |
29 |
also makes it easier to keep the architectures in sync, where possible, |
30 |
as when someone files a stabilization request for x86, they can do the |
31 |
same for $n other arches, too. |
32 |
|
33 |
> I only conferred with a few other people in #gentoo-x86. If anyone else |
34 |
> on the x86 team has opinions about this, I'd love to hear them, but as |
35 |
> the GLEP is outlined, I believe this way is the best way to go about it. |
36 |
|
37 |
I think if we start blanket allowing people to stabilize their own |
38 |
packages, we won't be any better off than we were before. In many |
39 |
cases, the maintainer *does* know best and should be listened to, but |
40 |
there are good reasons for making stabilization requests go through an |
41 |
arch team. After all, how many of these maintainers asking to mark |
42 |
their own packages stable *run* a stable system? Maybe a stable chroot? |
43 |
I'm willing to bet nearly *none* of them do, which is a problem when it |
44 |
comes to the QA of the x86 arch, which is the x86 arch team's |
45 |
responsibility. |
46 |
|
47 |
-- |
48 |
Chris Gianelloni |
49 |
Release Engineering - Strategic Lead |
50 |
Games - Developer |
51 |
Gentoo Linux |