| 1 |
15.01.2014 22:33, Thomas Sachau пишет: |
| 2 |
> William Hubbs schrieb: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
>> Thoughts? |
| 5 |
>> |
| 6 |
>> William |
| 7 |
>> |
| 8 |
>> [1] http://bugs.gentoo.org/487332 |
| 9 |
>> [2] http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/meeting-logs/20130917-summary.txt |
| 10 |
>> |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> I see 2 cases here: |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> 1. specific or all arch teams allow maintainers to stabilize packages on |
| 15 |
> their own, when they follow the arch team stabilization rules (e.g. |
| 16 |
> having a system running with stable keywords for testing the package). |
| 17 |
> This should not reduce the quality of the stable tree (or only to the |
| 18 |
> small amount, that some arch testers do additional checks the maintainer |
| 19 |
> does not do). Reading through this thread, it seems like amd64 and x86 |
| 20 |
> arch teams already use this policy. This sounds like a reasonable |
| 21 |
> agreement, so i am supporting this too. |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> 2. for arches with no such agreement or where the maintainer does not |
| 24 |
> have the needed hardware to test, no action for a certain amount of time |
| 25 |
> usually means, that the arch team is overloaded with work so the only |
| 26 |
> short- to mid-term solution is to reduce the amount of work resulting in |
| 27 |
> smaller amount of stable packages. So i am voting for maintainers |
| 28 |
> dropping stable keywords after a certain amount of time with no actions |
| 29 |
> (maybe with some notice beforehand). This might result in a mixed arch |
| 30 |
> user setup by default, but imho it is still better to have a smaller |
| 31 |
> stable set of core packages and testing packages on top then having |
| 32 |
> either everything on testing or broken/untested/unsupported packages, |
| 33 |
> which are still claimed to be the opposite with the stable keyword. |
| 34 |
> |
| 35 |
> short summary: |
| 36 |
> |
| 37 |
> -in agreement with arch teams, following stabilization policy and having |
| 38 |
> the needed hardware, maintainers should be able to add stable keywords |
| 39 |
> themselves |
| 40 |
> -if either agreement of arch team or needed hardware is missing, |
| 41 |
> keywords should be dropped, so that after some time the workload matches |
| 42 |
> the abilities of the arch team again. |
| 43 |
> |
| 44 |
|
| 45 |
Thanks, for the proposal. IIRC, there was similar backroom agreement in |
| 46 |
some minor arches, look at how armin76 stabilized packages earlier - |
| 47 |
sometimes he drops vast amount of keywords on ia64/sparc/m68k to |
| 48 |
unstable in stabilization requests. |
| 49 |
|
| 50 |
And i think we should continue this practice. |
| 51 |
|
| 52 |
-- |
| 53 |
Best regards, Sergey Popov |
| 54 |
Gentoo developer |
| 55 |
Gentoo Desktop Effects project lead |
| 56 |
Gentoo Qt project lead |
| 57 |
Gentoo Proxy maintainers project lead |
Archives