| 1 |
On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 10:00:12AM +0200, Pacho Ramos wrote: |
| 2 |
> El dom, 14-08-2016 a las 23:35 +0200, Kristian Fiskerstrand escribió: |
| 3 |
> > * Are there ways to reduce the stabilization lag of packages |
| 4 |
> > - looking into the effectiveness of ALLARCHES and its use |
| 5 |
> > - possibility for maintainer to stabilize packages themselves |
| 6 |
> > for |
| 7 |
> > architectures they have access to (including whether there |
| 8 |
> > might |
| 9 |
> > be a need for changes to gentoo infrastructure to facilitate |
| 10 |
> > this) |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> Thinking about the way I think most stabilization teams are handling |
| 13 |
> the bunch stabilizations, I think the best think to do is that the |
| 14 |
> maintainer itself goes ahead stabilizing on remaining arches as soon as |
| 15 |
> the first one does the job. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
+1000 |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
*snip* |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
> I am not sure if one suggestion I did a few days ago was included (as |
| 22 |
> the thread was already really long when I was able to reply sorry), if |
| 23 |
> that is not the case, it was: |
| 24 |
> My suggestion, for now would be to modify a bit the current policy: if |
| 25 |
> I don't misremember, we can drop stable keywords for arches that are |
| 26 |
> not stabilizing the package in 90 days. The problem is that it |
| 27 |
> currently cannot be done in most of the times because it's not feasible |
| 28 |
> for the maintainer to drop the keyword and *also* all the stable |
| 29 |
> keywords of reverse deps. |
| 30 |
> |
| 31 |
> Hence, I would suggest to, apart of allowing the maintainers to drop |
| 32 |
> the keywords, to also allow them to stabilize that packages on that |
| 33 |
> arches when this timeout has expired |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
I'm very much for this as well. Themaintainer should be able to |
| 36 |
stabilize on all arches after the timeout. That would solve the primary |
| 37 |
concern I have about the stable tree lagging. |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
William |
Archives