On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 09:03:35AM +0200, Michael Weber wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA256 > > On 08/22/2013 08:38 AM, Sergey Popov wrote: > > 21.08.2013 22:28, Alexis Ballier пишет: > >> > >> Instead of dropping them entirely to ~arch, maybe something in > >> between could be done: Said arches could start moving to ~arch > >> the leaf and less important packages. E.g. we have (had?) a lot > >> of sparc keywords on sound packages or ppc keywords on ocaml ones > >> because at some point (~10 years ago) some dev was interested in > >> these on this architecture but I'm pretty sure nobody uses them. > >> > >> In short: Reduce stable coverage to reduce the workload. > >> > >> Also, from what I've seen in the thread, you are talking about > >> keywords only, right ? Do these arches keep their stable mark in > >> profiles.desc? > >> > > > > I like this way much more. Let's clarify stabilization policy for > > some minor arches, e.g. policy about stabilization requests for > > huge packages. Cause dropping entire arch to ~arch maybe sometimes > > a bit overkill. > > And hard to revert. Sparc did drop a lot of keywords lately, by removing > itself from STABLEREQ w/o stabling the mentioned package.
Give maintainers some ability to take some action as well. Say I maintain package foo, and there is an old version that is stable on a minor arch. Say a stabilization request for a newer version has been opened for a while (30-60 days is probably sufficient) and the arch team hasn't responded. I want a path that would allow me to remove the older version of foo from the tree and close out the stable request. William
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
