1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
2 |
Hash: SHA512 |
3 |
|
4 |
On 08/06/2011 01:24 PM, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote: |
5 |
> On 06-08-2011 11:59, Markos Chandras wrote: |
6 |
>> On 08/06/2011 12:49 PM, Fabian Groffen wrote: |
7 |
>>> On 06-08-2011 11:00:16 +0100, Markos Chandras wrote: |
8 |
>>>> Oh come on Jorge. You know what I mean by slacking arches. I am |
9 |
>>>> not talking about punishing them. Maybe drop stable keywords |
10 |
>>>> or drop keyword from X package and shrink their tree so they |
11 |
>>>> can keep up with the load. |
12 |
>>>> |
13 |
>>>>> This should be the arch more developers use daily and is |
14 |
>>>>> likely the one with more members (herd count). Also, one |
15 |
>>>>> should remember the time it takes to compile, test or debug |
16 |
>>>>> an issue in a recent amd64 system or an old / slow box with |
17 |
>>>>> an "exotic arch" varies substantially. Not to mention that |
18 |
>>>>> the amount of testing done on "exotic arches" varies |
19 |
>>>>> substantially between projects. |
20 |
>>>> I am aware of the problems and this is way I want a solution. |
21 |
> |
22 |
>>> And what solution do you have in mind (in your Council role)? |
23 |
> |
24 |
> |
25 |
>> Drop stable keywords for certain arches and/or remove their |
26 |
>> keywords from X packages. The idea is to keep only a single and |
27 |
>> smaller portage tree which would be much more easier to manage. |
28 |
>> Pretty much the same situation as MIPS. It worked pretty well on |
29 |
>> MIPS, so it will work on these arches too |
30 |
> |
31 |
> If you talk to Mike, Raúl and Matt, I'm sure they'll tell you that |
32 |
> trying to get an arch out of testing status to supported is a |
33 |
> nightmare. |
34 |
Why would you wanna do that? The situation is highly unlikely to change |
35 |
in the future. It is better to have a fully working testing tree than |
36 |
pretending to have a usable stable tree. I would accept a solution were |
37 |
only @system is in stable and everything else is in ~testing. |
38 |
|
39 |
> AFAIK that was already done once for arm and is happening now for |
40 |
> mips. |
41 |
> |
42 |
> About the arches with >200 stable bugs, should we have dropped KDE |
43 |
> from the tree when for years we had >300 open bugs? Should we stop |
44 |
> doing releases if we have >100 open bugs? What about mysql with >50 |
45 |
> open bugs, etc? |
46 |
You can't really compare an architecture with a package can you? |
47 |
|
48 |
> Furthermore, there have been many complaints from arches with a high |
49 |
> number of stable bugs that by the time they were working on a stable |
50 |
> bug, a maintainer either dropped the version they were testing or |
51 |
> somewhere else in the tree someone decided to drop their keywords |
52 |
> and got their tree broken. |
53 |
We can't keep old ebuilds around forever just because an arch decides to |
54 |
act on these bugs after 10 months. I'd say it again, I don't blame them, |
55 |
they have real lives too. |
56 |
|
57 |
- -- |
58 |
Regards, |
59 |
Markos Chandras / Gentoo Linux Developer / Key ID: B4AFF2C2 |
60 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
61 |
Version: GnuPG v2.0.18 (GNU/Linux) |
62 |
|
63 |
iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJOPTQYAAoJEPqDWhW0r/LCxmsQAIJSZ9gvIYoyLk03bFkHeHWA |
64 |
4PCjoXPUWd8irpzV5+v01hU2up9w/3B3Hjr+vSfSY6W2+AymriHsB25MmsKa4uXF |
65 |
1/HYcKDOwrseg6QFUup7A1sLKewlMlWPrfkCKlHxIxJ0AvXRnGxLXwVHMG5034Ee |
66 |
A/VhdYvhltEokG46Z4hqeYssgZvO3tMzhNkgyMUXjG1x8+Rw/22TQsKICJljds3Y |
67 |
/ZyVXoiDePb42jmibv198vXBaAzTA7ENPGnI7iOoZkteGWCa4wmE/m4nzltXHe/b |
68 |
4kzsdB85ASNow2j9MGHOD+fmBqLEFTBy57s4WivNaOMTjiWbahCklZLTPlUFBrMJ |
69 |
WeP05YRbGDkkupf+vpivgjqArumOHs9aVelWJBiYfnzRjrT8FQJ33CWTXY9BoGcJ |
70 |
3cjEIjE79Bu2GK2Vq4e3Ob7ZDMAzIVxaWQpp5Q+NPuliE8/dE6YPWdL+0iK7kXg9 |
71 |
ZugGjz1q1XNSgwVqSpStjoBGaDQtAQXaPXI4Ez8DYwztFA0VwijFNPtBksCr1e/9 |
72 |
wjcU90yAUgSWmor0wQVqw1F+TS1H4iQO5G9dgiTq7B7ODMjXpzhVR3tBXGImaTcE |
73 |
c3DmhQVWrX1eTSteU6n5qD4jlt8G/lrKaKVZSh4ucHRp6nQV/sefPEIE1LlYDvRW |
74 |
AwzIAoRWuTUy9dEqpSXy |
75 |
=TSYO |
76 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |