On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 11:47:32PM +1000, Michael Palimaka wrote: > On 07/11/2017 11:06 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: > > On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 8:59 AM, Michael Palimaka <kensing...@gentoo.org> > > wrote: > >> On 07/11/2017 09:29 AM, Andrew Savchenko wrote: > >>> > >>> 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? > >> > >> The guidelines from that document are ripped straight out of the > >> devmanual and are a good starting point but rather generic. You can find > >> some more detailed suggestions on things to consider while testing on > >> the wiki: https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Package_testing > >> > > > > I think that in practice arch teams don't do have the stuff on that > > wiki page. Maybe some people do, but back when I was an amd64 AT I > > don't think anybody went testing multiple USE combinations for a > > typical package. > > Everything on that page is deliberately a suggestion only, and not > necessarily specific to stabilisation testing. > > In the end, we've never been able to reach any consensus on what exactly > an arch tester should do. Personally, I think we should just switch to > fully-automated, build-only testing for stabilistions unless the > maintainer opts otherwise (something that largely happens in practice > already). The main risk of breakage of a package moving from testing to > stable is always at build time anyway.
I would not be opposed to this. As a maintainer, I am as guilty as the next guy of not filing stable requests or not stabilizing packages.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
