On 08/15/2016 03:15 PM, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote: > On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 3:03 PM, Kristian Fiskerstrand <k...@gentoo.org> > wrote: >> Could you please elaborate a bit? In particular from perspective of (i) >> integration into current workflow, (ii) complexity in application >> maintenance/hosting (iii) cost/benefit considerations > > Well, I think stabilization (and, to some extent, keywording) is a
Thank you for elaborating > very different process from handling bugs and feature requests. It > would be great if we had tooling that focuses on these instead of > trying to fit into the bug tracker. It would entail a different I'm not sure I agree on this point, my perspective is the state of the stable tree is exactly dependent on it being considered as part of the regular workflow of developers, which has at least been implied in the past[0] - resulting in e.g InVCS. Part of the discussion in that case is the number of developers running full testing (~arch) and might not care too much about the state of the stable tree, and having stabilization as part of the specific workflow will help the state of the stable tree by requiring the developer to care about it. > workflow, obviously, but I think that's a plus in this case, and we > could make sure we have the command-line tools to make it easy to work > with. > as long as it doesn't become a disconnect to maintainer's responsibilities. The state of stable tree isn't a separate issue that belongs with the arch teams; it is an integrated and important part of maintaining any package to begin with. > Development/maintenance/hosting is an issue, though it's a bit hard to > say something definitive about it before there's more of a plan of how > such a tool could work. It's enough of a pain for me that I could see > myself investing some time in development. > > Perhaps some kind of middle ground would be to handle this stuff in a > separate Bugzilla product, and then making sure we have some tooling > around that to better present the data. See comment in previous chapter > > Cheers, > > Dirkjan > Notes: [0] but I don't recall any specific policies / council meeting summaries on it offhand and don't have time to search but feel free to provide it if easily available to anyone - the last discussion I see on this was https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/message/df7dee4ad61fe1c9bac866d15e0babfb -- Kristian Fiskerstrand OpenPGP certificate reachable at hkp://pool.sks-keyservers.net fpr:94CB AFDD 3034 5109 5618 35AA 0B7F 8B60 E3ED FAE3
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
