W dniu nie, 07.01.2018 o godzinie 21∶25 +0100, użytkownik Michał Górny napisał: > W dniu sob, 06.01.2018 o godzinie 12∶10 +0100, użytkownik Michał Górny > napisał: > > So I'm thinking of an alternate idea: to start adding staging warnings > > for additional profile class, combined with arch restriction. In other > > words, change CI from: > > > > -p stable > > > > to: > > > > -p stable,something -a alpha,amd64,...,mips,... > > > > with a separate class for NonSolvableDeps in non-stable profiles (like > > repoman's badindev/badinexp) that triggers only a staging-class warning. > > > > However, this means that: > > > > ১. We need to settle for either dev or exp being 'more' supported, > > and drop all unsupported profiles to the other group. > > > > ২. We need to fix the appropriate class of profiles for stable arches > > (or move them to the other group). > > > > ৩. The arches in question still need to generate reasonably low number > > of warnings. > > > > I'd like to follow this with a more precise proposal. Namely, redefine > the current profile statuses to apply the following: > > a. stable -> fully tested, all depgraph breakages are errors, > > b. exp -> fully tested, all depgraph breakages are warnings, > > c. dev -> developer's playground, not tested. > > > This would specifically mean that: > > 1. Any 'exp' profiles with serious breakage will temporarily be > downgraded to 'dev'. > > 2. A 'dev' profile can be upgraded to 'exp' if its scale of depgraph > breakage is reasonable (i.e. doesn't clutter the QA report with too many > warnings). > > 3. A 'exp' profile can be upgraded to 'stable' only if it has no > depgraph breakages. >
Following the explanation from Ulrich Müller, I'm correcting this proposal by swapping exp and dev, that is: a. stable -> fully tested, all depgraph breakages are errors, b. dev -> fully tested, all depgraph breakages are warnings, c. exp -> not tested. I will post updated patches shortly. -- Best regards, Michał Górny
