| 1 |
I'd like to suggest that stabilization procedures be loosened a bit. |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
Right now, stabilization is SLOW, and I think a lack of manpower on the |
| 4 |
arch teams might have something to do with it. |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
Suggestions: |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
Have arch teams possibly certify more arch testers? If you can prove or |
| 9 |
promise that your system is capable of testing packages for stabilization, |
| 10 |
the arch team should be able to recruit you pretty much no questions asked |
| 11 |
unless they have a reason otherwise. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
Also, maybe some sort of algorithm that flags the packages most badly in |
| 14 |
need of stabilization, using the following criteria: |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
* Number of days since the package or version was ~arch keyworded/added to |
| 17 |
the tree |
| 18 |
* Number of reverse dependencies for the package |
| 19 |
* Obstruction factor, or how many things are being blocked by the package |
| 20 |
(or a version) *not* being stabilized. |
| 21 |
* Number of bug reports for the package in question |
| 22 |
* Some sort of debianesque "popularity contest" that could (with end user |
| 23 |
opt-in of course) flag which packages are most commonly installed and |
| 24 |
therefore for which ones stabilization will have the greatest positive |
| 25 |
impact for the users. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
On Sun, Oct 30, 2016 at 1:38 PM, Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o> wrote: |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
> In two weeks from now, the council will meet again. This is the time |
| 31 |
> to raise and prepare items that the council should put on the agenda |
| 32 |
> to discuss or vote on. |
| 33 |
> |
| 34 |
> Please respond to this message with agenda items. Do not hesitate to |
| 35 |
> repeat your agenda item here with a pointer if you previously |
| 36 |
> suggested one (since the last meeting). |
| 37 |
> |
| 38 |
> The agenda for the meeting will be sent out on Sunday 2016-11-06. |
| 39 |
> |
| 40 |
> Please reply to the gentoo-project list. |
| 41 |
> |
| 42 |
> Ulrich |
| 43 |
> |
Archives