Gentoo Archives: gentoo-project

From: Pacho Ramos <pacho@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 15:22:07
Message-Id: 1379258522.8240.3.camel@localhost
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-project] Call for agenda items - Council meeting 2013-09-10 by Rich Freeman
1 El dom, 15-09-2013 a las 11:03 -0400, Rich Freeman escribió:
2 [...]
3 > As I see it we really only have two sustainable options:
4 >
5 > 1. Drop stable keywords on these arches wholesale.
6 > 2. Allow maintainers to be more aggressive about dropping stable
7 > packages when bugs are not closed in a reasonable timeframe (say, 90
8 > days).
9 >
10 > I suspect that #1 may be inevitable for some of these archs, but I'm
11 > certainly willing to try #2 first and see where that leaves us. I
12 > don't like the idea of maintainers having to maintain old versions of
13 > things like gnome because arch teams put in some time in years past
14 > but aren't interested in the newer version/etc.
15 >
16 > So, how about this as a policy:
17 > If a maintainer has an open STABLEREQ, or a KEYWORDREQ blocking a
18 > pending STABLEREQ, for 90 days with archs CCed and otherwise ready to
19 > be stabilized, the maintainer can remove older stable versions of the
20 > package at their discretion. A package is considered ready to be
21 > stabilized if it has been in the tree for 30 days, and has no known
22 > major flaws on arches that upstream considers supported.
23 >
24 > Note that if upstream doesn't support an arch, then it falls to the
25 > arch team (and not the maintainer) to support that arch if they want
26 > it stable.
27 >
28 > If the problem is limited to particular groups of packages then the
29 > new policy would take care of itself - stable keywords would basically
30 > get dropped until we're down to a set of packages that the arch team
31 > can support. If the problem is more widespread, then the new policy
32 > will basically make stable unusable on that arch as system packages
33 > get dropped, in which case we're basically back to dropping stable
34 > keywords.
35 >
36 > Again, this has nothing to do with picking and choosing arches to
37 > support. This is about defining the responsibility of arch teams if
38 > they want to be considered stable. The stable policy is basically a
39 > contract between arch teams and maintainers, and both sides have to do
40 > their part to make it work.
41 >
42 > Rich
43 >
44 >
46 I guess an important problem is that, once we drop keywords in a
47 package, a cascade effect can appear. For example, if we drop stable
48 keywords of gtk+ and pango due pending keywording, we will need to also
49 drop a ton of packages. And for cases where we would need to drop the
50 keywording completely, the situation can be even more difficult.
52 I remember long time ago HPPA did an important reduce of keywordings in
53 that arch (I remember they lost most gnome2 packages), not sure if maybe
54 other arches could need it too :/


Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-project] Call for agenda items - Council meeting 2013-09-10 Rich Freeman <rich@××××××××××××××.net>