On Mon, 10 Jul 2017 22:17:34 +0200 Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote: > On 07/10/2017 10:02 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: > > On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 3:57 PM, Andrew Savchenko <birc...@gentoo.org> > > wrote: > >> > >> On Mon, 10 Jul 2017 13:49:40 -0400 Rich Freeman wrote: > >> > >>> In the case of amd64 we already > >>> encourage individual package maintainers to stabilize their own > >>> packages > >> > >> Huh? Have our rules changed? As per devmanual[1] and GLEP 40[2] > >> stabilization must be carried out by arch teams, unless a special > >> arrangement is done between a developer and a team. > >> > > > > The docs are probably out of date - I'm not sure if the policy is > > documented anywhere. However it has been a fairly longstanding policy > > at this point that amd64 allows individual maintainers to stabilize > > their own packages. > > > > We looked after it for wg-stable (which died out as a result of rather > low participation, maybe it should be rebooted if people feel like > discussing this again), there isn't any authoritative policy allowing > it, GLEP:40 explicitly removes the possibility to do it for x86. That > said, for a number of packages maintainer stabilization can likely make > sense, the opposite view is four-eyes principle, it is always good to > have someone else build-test etc, but this is greatly helped by > tinderboxing efforts (thanks toralf) etc. So one likely output if > wg-stable is to come up with something would be a replacement GLEP for > 40 that matches the current state, and also kernel auto-stabiliation (as > discussed in [section 3.2 (Kernel)]
So, am I understanding this correctly that right now a package stabilization by maintainer without explicit permit from an arch team will be the violation of active and approved policies? Despite the maintainer-driven stabilization seems to be "a fairly longstanding policy" I'm reluctant to do such stabilization myself, because anyone may point out later that such action is a violation of the written policies and I will have nothing to defend me. Even if such stabilization is allowed, there are unanswered questions here: - is following seciton 4.1 from wg recommendations is sufficient? - should developer test each stabilization candidate on an up-to-date stable setup? Best regards, Andrew Savchenko
pgpYEUqvw0qvV.pgp
Description: PGP signature
