Hi!
On Sun, 20 Sep 2015, Ryan Hill wrote:
> On Sun, 20 Sep 2015 13:23:21 +0200 Tobias Klausmann <klaus...@gentoo.org>
> wrote:
> > arch_A maintainer sees ALLARCHES keyworded bug, and tests
> > everything on A. Upon keywording and running repoman, she
> > finds that two other arches need additional deps. What to do?
>
> Use common sense? This isn't brain surgery.
I encounter many situations in my archtesting where I wonder what
other people think. I'm a cynic, but even I won't assume people
are mindless idiots. So apparently there is a cognitive
dissonance. I enumerated the options as I see them because I
wanted to make sure that I had as complete a picture as was
feasible. The question I posed was meant to elicit other
solutions that I may have overlooked.
> > If anything, I'd say that the _maintainer_ can go ahead and
> > stabilize on all[0] arches after the first arch-specific
> > stabilization. Thus owning the decision and possible fallout.
>
> The maintainer already owns the fallout - they requested
> ALLARCHES in the first place.
...which still doesn't answer what the specific arch maintainer
should do. Do nothing with the tree and just comment on the
breakage? Just go with her own arch? Ignore the bug?
<rant>
I am already spending too much time guessing what the maintainers
wanted, meant to do and what their preferences are. After being
an AT for so long, I /mostly/ get it right, but I still waste
time on occasion.
I spent the last two weeks reducing the amount of STABLEREQ and
KEYWORDREQ bugs for Alpha to a manageable size. And that was only
possible since I had two weeks of vacation. I've been burning a
lot of time and energy on pointless things.
So maybe I am a bit more zealous about not leaving stuff like
this to "common sense", which seems to very often result in "do
whatever the fuck you want."
</rant>
Regards,
Tobias
PS: If anything above sounds like I am attacking anyone
personally, assume it's bonsaikitten. He can take it ;)
--
Sent from aboard the Culture ship
OU I Said, I've Got A Big Stick
