Gentoo Archives: gentoo-project

From: Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o>
To: gentoo-project@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] Call for agenda items - Council meeting 2013-09-10
Date: Sun, 15 Sep 2013 20:18:44
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-project] Call for agenda items - Council meeting 2013-09-10 by Ciaran McCreesh
1 On Sun, Sep 15, 2013 at 3:08 PM, Ciaran McCreesh
2 <ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com> wrote:
3 > On Sun, 15 Sep 2013 11:03:28 -0400
4 > Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o> wrote:
5 >> So, how about this as a policy:
6 >> If a maintainer has an open STABLEREQ, or a KEYWORDREQ blocking a
7 >> pending STABLEREQ, for 90 days with archs CCed and otherwise ready to
8 >> be stabilized, the maintainer can remove older stable versions of the
9 >> package at their discretion. A package is considered ready to be
10 >> stabilized if it has been in the tree for 30 days, and has no known
11 >> major flaws on arches that upstream considers supported.
12 >
13 > The danger of this approach is that it encourages arch teams to stable
14 > even if they're not convinced something's been tested sufficiently.
16 My understanding is that half the "stable" packages on the arches in
17 question are only compile-tested anyway. If we do drop the keywords
18 then users will only have the choice of running packages that aren't
19 stable-tested at all.
21 I don't really see my proposal as an ideal one - merely a compromise
22 that seems better than the alternatives. The only thing that will
23 actually improve the true quality of the minor arches is more
24 manpower. If you're running s390/sparc/whatever then frankly there
25 aren't really many better options out there, so you might as well
26 pitch in and help scratch your own itch...
28 Rich