El sáb, 17-12-2011 a las 16:22 +0100, "Paweł Hajdan, Jr." escribió: > For several mass-filed stabilization bugs I got comments why I didn't cc > arches like ppc. > > One problem is that I cc x86 and amd64 via "edit many bugs at once" > Bugzilla feature, and when filing bugs the script checks that it's > repoman-possible to stabilize given package on x86 and amd64. > > Not all packages are even keyworded ~ppc, and I guess there are packages > that can be stabilized on x86 and amd64, but not ppc because of ~ppc > dependencies. > > All of that is of course solvable with a smarter script, however I'm > really worried about the additional load on the "rare arches". I > frequently notice they drop stable keywords when asked for a > stabilization of some rare package (and I'm fine with that), and they > may be annoyed by stabilization requests for minor and revision bumps > (which are fine at least for x86, because of the batch-stabilization > workflow; of course other arches are welcome to adopt it too). > > What do you think? Should I make my scripts smarter, or is it fine to > just cc x86 and amd64? Is anyone from non-x86-non-amd64 arch teams > annoyed by the queue of stabilization bugs? >
I am not in ppc* teams but, from my point of view, looks like they are understaffed and I doubt they could handle so many requests. For mass stabilization purposes I would keep the script for amd64/x86 only for now :-/
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
