Re: [gentoo-dev] making the stable tree more up-to-date

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 Descri

Re: [gentoo-dev] making the stable tree more up-to-date

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] making the stable tree more up-to-date

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 ou

Re: Re: [gentoo-dev] making the stable tree more up-to-date

> > 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...

Re: [gentoo-dev] making the stable tree more up-to-date

On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 8:27 AM, "Paweł Hajdan, Jr." 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 stable-by-default, object-if-you-ca

Re: [gentoo-dev] making the stable tree more up-to-date

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] making the stable tree more up-to-date

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 ebuild

Re: [gentoo-dev] making the stable tree more up-to-date

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 LDFLAG

Re: [gentoo-dev] making the stable tree more up-to-date

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 > poin

Re: [gentoo-dev] making the stable tree more up-to-date

On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 11:42:15AM +0100, justin wrote: > Hi, > > 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. The > maintainer is responsible for the package, that means it is their > responsibility to

Re: [gentoo-dev] making the stable tree more up-to-date

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 ebui

Re: [gentoo-dev] making the stable tree more up-to-date

Hi, 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. The maintainer is responsible for the package, that means it is their responsibility to decide that a package should go stable. In addition they have to ma

Re: [gentoo-dev] making the stable tree more up-to-date

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] making the stable tree more up-to-date

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 l

Re: [gentoo-dev] making the stable tree more up-to-date

On Mon, 2011-11-21 at 09:41 +0100, "Paweł Hajdan, Jr." wrote: > I wrote a script, > , > that scans the tree for packages that could be easily stabilized (all > deps stable, no bugs). > > Pa

Re: [gentoo-dev] making the stable tree more up-to-date

On 21 November 2011 08:41, "Paweł Hajdan, Jr." wrote: > > > 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 bugs). > > I'm

Re: [gentoo-dev] making the stable tree more up-to-date

On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 7:14 AM, Andreas K. Huettel 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 that this is somethi

Re: [gentoo-dev] making the stable tree more up-to-date

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 a

Re: [gentoo-dev] making the stable tree more up-to-date

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 o

Re: [gentoo-dev] making the stable tree more up-to-date

> On Mon, 21 Nov 2011, Paweł Hajdan, wrote: > I'm attaching a list of packages that are sitting in the tree for at > least 6 months (180 days, way more than 30 days required for > stabilization) and should be ready for stabilization. > Please review the list, it's 800+ packages so I thought a