Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH v2] profiles.desc: Lower profiles with broken depgraph from dev to exp

[Mart Raudsepp]

On Thu, 2018-01-11 at 21:27 +0100, Michał Górny wrote:
> W dniu czw, 11.01.2018 o godzinie 22∶17 +0200, użytkownik Mart
> Raudsepp
> napisał:
> > On Thu, 2018-01-11 at 20:45 +0100, Michał Górny wrote:
> > >  # ARM64 Profiles
> > > -arm64           default/linux/arm64/13.0                        
> > > dev
> > > +arm64           default/linux/arm64/13.0                        
> > > exp
> > >  arm64           default/linux/arm64/13.0/desktop                
> > > exp
> > > -arm64           default/linux/arm64/13.0/desktop/systemd        
> > > dev
> > > +arm64           default/linux/arm64/13.0/desktop/systemd        
> > > exp
> > >  arm64           default/linux/arm64/13.0/developer              
> > > exp
> > >  arm64           default/linux/arm64/13.0/systemd                
> > > exp
> > > -arm64           default/linux/arm64/17.0                        
> > > dev
> > > +arm64           default/linux/arm64/17.0                        
> > > exp
> > >  arm64           default/linux/arm64/17.0/desktop                
> > > exp
> > > -arm64           default/linux/arm64/17.0/desktop/systemd        
> > > dev
> > > +arm64           default/linux/arm64/17.0/desktop/systemd        
> > > exp
> > >  arm64           default/linux/arm64/17.0/developer              
> > > exp
> > >  arm64           default/linux/arm64/17.0/systemd                
> > > exp
> >
> > With this I'll need to run through all of these profiles with
> > repoman -e=y and wait a long time, instead of just the two (well,
> > with
> > 17.0 now 4) profiles that I actually care about and checks enough.
> > I
> > also will see a TON of issues from the musl profiles down below
> > that
> > main block (it doesn't inherit base or something).
> >
> > This would make arm64 work completely impossible, so NAK from me.
>
> repoman has --include-arches option for a reason. Profile statuses
> are
> not your private convenience.

That doesn't help whatsoever due to musl. Also not for running things
on a slower arch (mips in this case).

> > Additionally if depgraph wouldn't be broken anymore, we would be
> > moving
> > them to stable, not some separate "dev" step.
> >
> > Same goes for the mips main block changes.
>
> But it is broken, and it won't become less broken if we keep ignoring
> the fact and not reporting new breakages just because one developer
> can't fix his workflow.

Your patch simply removes dev completely, with no reason for it to
exist anymore then. If depgraph isn't broken, it'd be stable. There'd
be no reason for dev. Dev is dev BECAUSE it has a broken depgraph, but
is aspiring towards not.
My workflow is just fine.