On 12/16/11 3:12 PM, justin wrote:
So lets agree that your proceeding is worth the effort, but extend the
time you give the maintainer to iron their packages.
Sounds good, looks like other people have similar comments about this.
I'll do that, thank you for feedback. :)
signature.asc
On Friday 16 December 2011 11:42:15 justin wrote:
Hi,
I really like that you open all those bugs. But it makes no sense to add
arches after a time out.
Personally, I agree with have more stable packages in tree, but I just point
out one thing. If me, or another arch tester find ebuild
On 12/16/2011 06:06 AM, Agostino Sarubbo wrote:
On Friday 16 December 2011 11:42:15 justin wrote:
Hi,
I really like that you open all those bugs. But it makes no sense to add
arches after a time out.
Personally, I agree with have more stable packages in tree, but I just
point
out one
On Friday 16 December 2011 06:10:13 Anthony G. Basile wrote:
Does your script do any checking on the quality of the ebuild, eg that
it respects C/LDFLAGS. If so, that's useful and would help package
maintainers to better prepare their ebuilds for stabilization.
Unfortunately no.
For LDFLAGS
On 12/16/11 12:21 PM, Agostino Sarubbo wrote:
On Friday 16 December 2011 06:10:13 Anthony G. Basile wrote:
Does your script do any checking on the quality of the ebuild, eg that
it respects C/LDFLAGS. If so, that's useful and would help package
maintainers to better prepare their ebuilds for
On 12/16/11 11:42 AM, justin wrote:
I really like that you open all those bugs. But it makes no sense to
add arches after a time out. At least not after a such a short
one.
I'm sorry this has annoyed/upset you. Let me just point out some facts:
- in November I first wrote about this new
On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 8:27 AM, Paweł Hajdan, Jr.
phajdan...@gentoo.org wrote:
- people complain that a week-long timeout is too short, while after I
CC arches the answer often comes within minutes.
So, I agree with pretty-much everything you said, and I completely
agree that
That said, there is probably room for debate over the length of time
we leave the bug open. Maybe a week isn't quite long enough - maybe
two weeks is better.
I'd like to support that suggestion. The new process is a great thing, just
give us a little bit more time to respond please... :)
On 12/16/11 2:27 PM, Paweł Hajdan, Jr. wrote:
On 12/16/11 11:42 AM, justin wrote:
I really like that you open all those bugs. But it makes no sense to
add arches after a time out. At least not after a such a short
one.
I'm sorry this has annoyed/upset you. Let me just point out some
On 2011-12-16 Fri 06:05, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
That said, there is probably room for debate over the length of time
we leave the bug open. Maybe a week isn't quite long enough - maybe
two weeks is better.
When you do timeout a bug and assign it to arches, it would be great if
you could
On 11/25/11 5:39 PM, Thomas Kahle wrote:
I still remember that arfrever had such a script running for python
packages and that we were quite annoyed by the automatic stable bugs
for every minor version of every small python package.
I also still remember it, and that was one of the things
On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 05:39:32PM +0100, Thomas Kahle wrote:
On 09:41 Mon 21 Nov 2011, Paweł Hajdan, Jr. wrote:
I think that with recent advancements in batch-stabilization we're able
to process a much higher amount of stabilization bugs, and keep the bug
queue low. It used to be longer
Pawel,
while I appreciate very much what you are doing, there is one obvious problem:
usually, as a maintainer, one does not file a stablereq for a single arch, but
for all stable arches of a package.
Are the cited advances relevant for all stable arches, for the major ones, or
only for
tl;dr - I plan to file stabilization bugs without CC-ing arches first so
that maintainers have chance to comment anyway. That'd still generate
large amount of bugs, and I was mostly asking about that.
On 11/21/11 1:14 PM, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
Are the cited advances relevant for all stable
On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 7:14 AM, Andreas K. Huettel
dilfri...@gentoo.org wrote:
I would like to avoid the situation that we all file stable requests like mad
and end up with all-but-one swamped arch teams and a neverending list of open
stabilization bugs waiting for the last arch.
I think
On 21 November 2011 08:41, Paweł Hajdan, Jr. phajdan...@gentoo.orgwrote:
I wrote a script,
http://git.overlays.gentoo.org/gitweb/?p=proj/arch-tools.git;a=blob;f=stabilization-candidates.py;hb=HEAD
,
that scans the tree for packages that could be easily stabilized (all
deps stable, no
16 matches
Mail list logo
