On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 2:48 AM, Michał Górny <mgo...@gentoo.org> wrote:
> Dnia 11 stycznia 2018 07:54:40 CET, Mike Gilbert <flop...@gentoo.org>
> napisał(a):
>>On Wed, Jan 10, 2018 at 11:10 PM, Michał Górny <mgo...@gentoo.org>
>>wrote:
>>> W dniu śro, 10.01.2018 o godzinie 21∶45 -0500, użytkownik Mike
>>Gilbert
>>> napisał:
>>>> On Wed, Jan 10, 2018 at 5:56 PM, Zac Medico <zmed...@gentoo.org>
>>wrote:
>>>> > On 01/10/2018 02:24 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
>>>> > > Enable repoman checks on exp profiles by default to improve
>>>> > > the dependency graph integrity on those profiles and help them
>>on their
>>>> > > way towards stable status. This is possible now that the
>>dependency
>>>> > > graph problems are warnings rather than errors.
>>>> > > ---
>>>> > > repoman/pym/repoman/argparser.py | 2 +-
>>>> > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>> > >
>>>> > > diff --git a/repoman/pym/repoman/argparser.py
>>b/repoman/pym/repoman/argparser.py
>>>> > > index f32972288..d49147366 100644
>>>> > > --- a/repoman/pym/repoman/argparser.py
>>>> > > +++ b/repoman/pym/repoman/argparser.py
>>>> > > @@ -167,7 +167,7 @@ def parse_args(argv, qahelp,
>>repoman_default_opts):
>>>> > >
>>>> > > parser.add_argument(
>>>> > > '-e', '--include-exp-profiles', choices=('y',
>>'n'), metavar='<y|n>',
>>>> > > - default=False,
>>>> > > + default='y',
>>>> > > help='include exp profiles in dependency checks')
>>>> > >
>>>> > > parser.add_argument(
>>>> > >
>>>> >
>>>> > We have dev and exp profiles disabled by default because the time
>>>> > consumed by repoman is proportional to the number of profiles.
>>>> >
>>>> > The current counts are as follows:
>>>> >
>>>> > stable 87
>>>> > dev 88
>>>> > exp 149
>>>>
>>>> Yeah, I really don't like the idea of making repoman even slower by
>>default.
>>>
>>> The alternative is to go for all profiles being stable. Because
>>> accepting developers randomly breaking profiles 'because repoman
>>speed'
>>> is not acceptable.
>>
>>I disagree. Many of these are profiles that are seldom used and very
>>few users are affected by any breakage.
>>
>>There's a balance to be struck here, and I think it's pretty good
>>right where it is.
>
> Just to be clear, the current counts are irrelevant. The goal is to have a
> second status that covers profiles on their way to becoming stable. This
> patch is part of that thread.
I see. I have no objection to adding on a smaller number of profiles
by default to help support this.
