Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: rfc: stabilization policies

2013-08-21 Thread Pacho Ramos
El mié, 21-08-2013 a las 10:57 +0200, Tom Wijsman escribió: > On Wed, 21 Aug 2013 10:22:39 +0200 > Pacho Ramos wrote: > > > Regarding the kernel... well, I don't think having a 3.8.x kernel as > > stable one is so old, what are current kernel versions in stable > > Fedora, OpenSuSE, Mageia... las

[gentoo-dev] Re: rfc: stabilization policies

2013-08-21 Thread Michael Palimaka
On 21/08/2013 20:31, Tom Wijsman wrote: On Wed, 21 Aug 2013 20:13:00 +1000 Michael Palimaka wrote: For those not familiar with imlate, please note that these numbers include packages that have never been stabilised. True, this brings up two questions: 1. How do we filter out those that we

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: rfc: stabilization policies

2013-08-21 Thread Tom Wijsman
On Wed, 21 Aug 2013 20:13:00 +1000 Michael Palimaka wrote: > For those not familiar with imlate, please note that these numbers > include packages that have never been stabilised. True, this brings up two questions: 1. How do we filter out those that were never stabilized? 2. How much of th

[gentoo-dev] Re: rfc: stabilization policies

2013-08-21 Thread Michael Palimaka
On 21/08/2013 07:05, Tom Wijsman wrote: See `imlate --mtime=180 -s | less`. (From app-portage/gentoolkit-dev) I quote: == 4392 Stable candidates for 'gentoo' on 'amd64' == Let's double the number to a yea

[gentoo-dev] Re: rfc: stabilization policies

2013-08-21 Thread Michael Palimaka
On 21/08/2013 18:30, Tom Wijsman wrote: On Wed, 21 Aug 2013 17:04:45 +1000 Michael Palimaka wrote: We would probably benefit from formalising a clearer definition of arch/~arch - it seems to mean a lot of different things to different people. http://devmanual.gentoo.org/keywording lists a de

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: rfc: stabilization policies

2013-08-21 Thread Tom Wijsman
On Wed, 21 Aug 2013 10:22:39 +0200 Pacho Ramos wrote: > Regarding the kernel... well, I don't think having a 3.8.x kernel as > stable one is so old, what are current kernel versions in stable > Fedora, OpenSuSE, Mageia... last time I checked we weren't so ahead > on this (thanks to kernel team ;)

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: rfc: stabilization policies

2013-08-21 Thread Tom Wijsman
On Wed, 21 Aug 2013 18:23:33 +1000 Michael Palimaka wrote: > On 21/08/2013 18:10, Tom Wijsman wrote: > > On Wed, 21 Aug 2013 16:51:37 +1000 > > Michael Palimaka wrote: > > > >> On 21/08/2013 05:31, Tom Wijsman wrote: > >> > >>> On Tue, 20 Aug 2013 14:28:15 -0400 > >>> Ian Stakenvicius wrote: >

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: rfc: stabilization policies

2013-08-21 Thread Tom Wijsman
On Wed, 21 Aug 2013 17:04:45 +1000 Michael Palimaka wrote: > We would probably benefit from formalising a clearer definition of > arch/~arch - it seems to mean a lot of different things to different > people. http://devmanual.gentoo.org/keywording lists a definition; so, now I wonder what it co

[gentoo-dev] Re: rfc: stabilization policies

2013-08-21 Thread Michael Palimaka
On 21/08/2013 18:10, Tom Wijsman wrote: On Wed, 21 Aug 2013 16:51:37 +1000 Michael Palimaka wrote: On 21/08/2013 05:31, Tom Wijsman wrote: On Tue, 20 Aug 2013 14:28:15 -0400 Ian Stakenvicius wrote: That script has been running for long enough now. It doesn't work out... What do you mean

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: rfc: stabilization policies

2013-08-21 Thread Pacho Ramos
El mié, 21-08-2013 a las 18:08 +1000, Michael Palimaka escribió: > On 21/08/2013 17:54, Sergey Popov wrote: > > Why we should bring new half-stable, half-testing keyword for this? I > > think that this is no way to go. We should improve current situation > > with arches by some other ways(e.g., rec

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: rfc: stabilization policies

2013-08-21 Thread Tom Wijsman
On Wed, 21 Aug 2013 16:51:37 +1000 Michael Palimaka wrote: > On 21/08/2013 05:31, Tom Wijsman wrote: > > > On Tue, 20 Aug 2013 14:28:15 -0400 > > Ian Stakenvicius wrote: > > > > That script has been running for long enough now. It doesn't work > > out... > > What do you mean when you say it doe

[gentoo-dev] Re: rfc: stabilization policies

2013-08-21 Thread Michael Palimaka
On 21/08/2013 17:54, Sergey Popov wrote: Why we should bring new half-stable, half-testing keyword for this? I think that this is no way to go. We should improve current situation with arches by some other ways(e.g., recruiting people). Maybe drop some damn-bad understaffed arches to unstable onl

[gentoo-dev] Re: rfc: stabilization policies

2013-08-21 Thread Michael Palimaka
On 21/08/2013 05:24, Tom Wijsman wrote: On Tue, 20 Aug 2013 13:19:10 -0500 William Hubbs wrote: All, I'm not really sure what the answer to this problem is, so I want to know what the group thinks about how we can handle it. During the last release of OpenRC, I learned that people *do* run p

[gentoo-dev] Re: rfc: stabilization policies

2013-08-20 Thread Michael Palimaka
On 21/08/2013 05:31, Tom Wijsman wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Tue, 20 Aug 2013 14:28:15 -0400 Ian Stakenvicius wrote: I see a few issues with ~arch -> table migrations: #1 - things just sit in ~arch. The auto-stablereq script should help with this one I think; w

[gentoo-dev] Re: rfc: stabilization policies

2013-08-20 Thread Jonathan Callen
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On 08/20/2013 04:12 PM, Michael Orlitzky wrote: >> # Redmine =dev-ruby/builder-3.1.4 ~amd64 =dev-ruby/rails-3.2.13 ~amd64 >> =dev-ruby/railties-3.2.13 ~amd64 =dev-ruby/actionmailer-3.2.13 ~amd64 >> =dev-ruby/builder-3.0.4 >> ~amd64 =dev-ruby/arel-3