1 |
On Mon, 10 Jul 2017 22:17:34 +0200 Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote: |
2 |
> On 07/10/2017 10:02 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: |
3 |
> > On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 3:57 PM, Andrew Savchenko <bircoph@g.o> wrote: |
4 |
> >> |
5 |
> >> On Mon, 10 Jul 2017 13:49:40 -0400 Rich Freeman wrote: |
6 |
> >> |
7 |
> >>> In the case of amd64 we already |
8 |
> >>> encourage individual package maintainers to stabilize their own |
9 |
> >>> packages |
10 |
> >> |
11 |
> >> Huh? Have our rules changed? As per devmanual[1] and GLEP 40[2] |
12 |
> >> stabilization must be carried out by arch teams, unless a special |
13 |
> >> arrangement is done between a developer and a team. |
14 |
> >> |
15 |
> > |
16 |
> > The docs are probably out of date - I'm not sure if the policy is |
17 |
> > documented anywhere. However it has been a fairly longstanding policy |
18 |
> > at this point that amd64 allows individual maintainers to stabilize |
19 |
> > their own packages. |
20 |
> > |
21 |
> |
22 |
> We looked after it for wg-stable (which died out as a result of rather |
23 |
> low participation, maybe it should be rebooted if people feel like |
24 |
> discussing this again), there isn't any authoritative policy allowing |
25 |
> it, GLEP:40 explicitly removes the possibility to do it for x86. That |
26 |
> said, for a number of packages maintainer stabilization can likely make |
27 |
> sense, the opposite view is four-eyes principle, it is always good to |
28 |
> have someone else build-test etc, but this is greatly helped by |
29 |
> tinderboxing efforts (thanks toralf) etc. So one likely output if |
30 |
> wg-stable is to come up with something would be a replacement GLEP for |
31 |
> 40 that matches the current state, and also kernel auto-stabiliation (as |
32 |
> discussed in [section 3.2 (Kernel)] |
33 |
|
34 |
So, am I understanding this correctly that right now a package |
35 |
stabilization by maintainer without explicit permit from an arch |
36 |
team will be the violation of active and approved policies? |
37 |
|
38 |
Despite the maintainer-driven stabilization seems to be "a fairly |
39 |
longstanding policy" I'm reluctant to do such stabilization myself, |
40 |
because anyone may point out later that such action is a violation |
41 |
of the written policies and I will have nothing to defend me. |
42 |
|
43 |
Even if such stabilization is allowed, there are unanswered |
44 |
questions here: |
45 |
- is following seciton 4.1 from wg recommendations is sufficient? |
46 |
- should developer test each stabilization candidate on an |
47 |
up-to-date stable setup? |
48 |
|
49 |
Best regards, |
50 |
Andrew Savchenko |