Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Slacking arches - which are stable, which aren't?
On Monday 06 October 2008 16:07:14 Jeremy Olexa wrote: Does it *really* matter if these under-staffed odd arches have a stable tree or not? If there is a problem with a stable package right now, will there be a new version marked stable in a reasonable amount of time? I think we can conclude that having a stable tree for understaffed arches might cause more harm than good. how exactly do you propose we sanely build stages for such arches then ? short answer: you cant. -mike signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Slacking arches - which are stable, which aren't?
El lun, 06-10-2008 a las 23:13 +, Duncan escribió: Jeremy Olexa [EMAIL PROTECTED] posted [EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Mon, 06 Oct 2008 15:07:14 -0500: AFAIK, it is incorrect right now to exclude s390, arm, sh, etc on stablereqs right now..But, I ask this question to the dev community: Why? There are ~190 open bugs with s390 as assignee or on the CC list. Does it *really* matter if these under-staffed odd arches have a stable tree or not? Having been an amd64 user back when it was much smaller, and having followed the previous discussion on this here, including the mips - experimental move, yes, it does matter. With the bugs there's at least some info on a package and its stabilization potential when/if someone gets around to doing something about it. Without them, the job of bringing them back to unsupported and then to full supported, if there's suddenly a leap in interest, becomes much harder as there's that much less info on what /was/ stable at one point, and on anything in the ~arch versions that might need checked before they go stable again. I fully agree. I think bringing some understaffed arches back to ~arch is an option, but should be avoided if possible. I wonder how many of these 190 open bugs in s390 are actually bugs about brokenness, and not just regular stabilizations... And by the way, amd64 had a similar amount of open bugs by the end of 2007. Regards, -- Santiago Moisés Mola Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | GPG: AAD203B5 signature.asc Description: Esta parte del mensaje está firmada digitalmente
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Slacking arches - which are stable, which aren't?
On Sun, Oct 5, 2008 at 9:07 PM, Ryan Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sun, 05 Oct 2008 20:44:51 -0500 Jeremy Olexa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I would suggest moving all the slacking arches to experimental until there is desire from the dev community (read: manpower) to support a stable tree again. Until then, it seems pretty pointless to keep assigning bugs to these arches and they just keep rotting there because no one gets around to them. 2 cents, -Jeremy ++ $473.57 My aim with the email wasn't to start up this discussion so much as to figure out which arches are supported by stable keywords, and which ones are okay to not request stable keywords so that bugs don't sit around for months without action on them. I know that vapier is pretty much the only dev with an sh or s390 box, but I know there are a couple of people with ARM, I was just hoping we had some sort of official list somewhere.
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Slacking arches - which are stable, which aren't?
Steev Klimaszewski wrote: On Sun, Oct 5, 2008 at 9:07 PM, Ryan Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sun, 05 Oct 2008 20:44:51 -0500 Jeremy Olexa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I would suggest moving all the slacking arches to experimental until there is desire from the dev community (read: manpower) to support a stable tree again. Until then, it seems pretty pointless to keep assigning bugs to these arches and they just keep rotting there because no one gets around to them. 2 cents, -Jeremy ++ $473.57 My aim with the email wasn't to start up this discussion so much as to figure out which arches are supported by stable keywords, and which ones are okay to not request stable keywords so that bugs don't sit around for months without action on them. I know that vapier is pretty much the only dev with an sh or s390 box, but I know there are a couple of people with ARM, I was just hoping we had some sort of official list somewhere. I wasn't trying to go down that road either but you should know that this discussion will be forced there if there is to be any conclusion to this topic. AFAIK, it is incorrect right now to exclude s390, arm, sh, etc on stablereqs right now..But, I ask this question to the dev community: Why? There are ~190 open bugs with s390 as assignee or on the CC list. Does it *really* matter if these under-staffed odd arches have a stable tree or not? If there is a problem with a stable package right now, will there be a new version marked stable in a reasonable amount of time? I think we can conclude that having a stable tree for understaffed arches might cause more harm than good. To conclude my input on the topic: It is my opinion that filing stablereqs against these arches is silly. However, I will continue to do so until requested otherwise. I respect that people may not have enough resources or time to keep up to x86 or amd64, so maybe there needs to be a policy change somehow..? (or maybe it just needs to be clarified better) -Jeremy
[gentoo-dev] Re: Slacking arches - which are stable, which aren't?
Jeremy Olexa [EMAIL PROTECTED] posted [EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Mon, 06 Oct 2008 15:07:14 -0500: AFAIK, it is incorrect right now to exclude s390, arm, sh, etc on stablereqs right now..But, I ask this question to the dev community: Why? There are ~190 open bugs with s390 as assignee or on the CC list. Does it *really* matter if these under-staffed odd arches have a stable tree or not? Having been an amd64 user back when it was much smaller, and having followed the previous discussion on this here, including the mips - experimental move, yes, it does matter. With the bugs there's at least some info on a package and its stabilization potential when/if someone gets around to doing something about it. Without them, the job of bringing them back to unsupported and then to full supported, if there's suddenly a leap in interest, becomes much harder as there's that much less info on what /was/ stable at one point, and on anything in the ~arch versions that might need checked before they go stable again. So it matters; there's a practical reason for it. However, that's not the same as saying it's the overall best solution at this time. I have no opinion on that, particularly as I /personally/ prefer ~arch in any case. -- Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master. Richard Stallman
[gentoo-dev] Re: Slacking arches - which are stable, which aren't?
On Sun, 05 Oct 2008 20:44:51 -0500 Jeremy Olexa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I would suggest moving all the slacking arches to experimental until there is desire from the dev community (read: manpower) to support a stable tree again. Until then, it seems pretty pointless to keep assigning bugs to these arches and they just keep rotting there because no one gets around to them. 2 cents, -Jeremy ++ $473.57 -- gcc-porting, by design, by neglect treecleaner, for a fact or just for effect wxwidgets @ gentoo EFFD 380E 047A 4B51 D2BD C64F 8AA8 8346 F9A4 0662 signature.asc Description: PGP signature
