All,
It is becoming more and more obvious that we do not have enough manpower
on the arch teams, even some of the ones we consider major arch's, to
keep up with stabilization requests. For example, there is this bug [1],
which is blocking the stabilization of several important packages.
I spoke t
On 01/14/2014 04:37 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
>
> 2. I would like to see the policy below applied to all arch's [2].
[ ] Yup
[X] Nope
On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 04:57:30PM -0500, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
> On 01/14/2014 04:37 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
> >
> > 2. I would like to see the policy below applied to all arch's [2].
>
> [ ] Yup
> [X] Nope
The reverse of this would be to let maintainers stabilize on all arch's
after 90 days
On 01/14/2014 05:33 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 04:57:30PM -0500, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
>> On 01/14/2014 04:37 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
>>>
>>> 2. I would like to see the policy below applied to all arch's [2].
>>
>> [ ] Yup
>> [X] Nope
>
> The reverse of this would be to
On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 05:43:57PM -0500, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
> On 01/14/2014 05:33 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 04:57:30PM -0500, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
> >> On 01/14/2014 04:37 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
> >>>
> >>> 2. I would like to see the policy below applied to all
On 14 January 2014 18:11, William Hubbs wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 05:43:57PM -0500, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
> > On 01/14/2014 05:33 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 04:57:30PM -0500, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
> > >> On 01/14/2014 04:37 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
> > >>>
>
On Tue, 14 Jan 2014 15:37:19 -0600
William Hubbs wrote:
> Thoughts?
In this situation, I see three opposite ends of choices:
1. "We do nothing"; which means that as a side effect either less
often a version would be picked for stabilization or stabilizations
will just take longer due to a
Am Mittwoch, 15. Januar 2014, 00:49:28 schrieb Tom Wijsman:
> On Tue, 14 Jan 2014 15:37:19 -0600
>
> William Hubbs wrote:
> > Thoughts?
>
> In this situation, I see three opposite ends of choices:
>
Here's another idea:
4. Friendly ask the arch teams / make a policy that @system packages com
On Tue, 14 Jan 2014 16:57:30 -0500
Michael Orlitzky wrote:
> On 01/14/2014 04:37 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
> >
> > 2. I would like to see the policy below applied to all arch's [2].
>
> [ ] Yup
> [X] Nope
For which reason?
I could do
[✓] Yup
[X] Nope
'cause a stable version that's no longer
On Tue, 14 Jan 2014 17:43:57 -0500
Michael Orlitzky wrote:
> It's attempting to fix a headache with a bullet. The arch teams are
> lagging behind, you're annoyed, I get it. Give 'em hell. But don't
> break stable to make a point.
>
> For users, both options are worse than the status quo.
When yo
On 01/14/2014 07:06 PM, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
Am Mittwoch, 15. Januar 2014, 00:49:28 schrieb Tom Wijsman:
On Tue, 14 Jan 2014 15:37:19 -0600
William Hubbs wrote:
Thoughts?
In this situation, I see three opposite ends of choices:
Here's another idea:
4. Friendly ask the arch teams / ma
On Tue, 14 Jan 2014 18:22:51 -0500
Jeff Horelick wrote:
> I think the simplest short-term solution might be to add teams that
> are looking for ArchTesters to the Staffing Needs page on the wiki
Adding a lot of them could make it noisy, I think we could just make
one entry to link to a page that
On Wed, 15 Jan 2014 01:06:07 +0100
"Andreas K. Huettel" wrote:
> Am Mittwoch, 15. Januar 2014, 00:49:28 schrieb Tom Wijsman:
> > On Tue, 14 Jan 2014 15:37:19 -0600
> >
> > William Hubbs wrote:
> > > Thoughts?
> >
> > In this situation, I see three opposite ends of choices:
> >
>
> Here's ano
On Tue, 14 Jan 2014 19:17:35 -0500
"Anthony G. Basile" wrote:
> On 01/14/2014 07:06 PM, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
> > Am Mittwoch, 15. Januar 2014, 00:49:28 schrieb Tom Wijsman:
> >> On Tue, 14 Jan 2014 15:37:19 -0600
> >>
> >> William Hubbs wrote:
> >>> Thoughts?
> >> In this situation, I see t
On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 01:38:08AM +0100, Tom Wijsman wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Jan 2014 01:06:07 +0100
> "Andreas K. Huettel" wrote:
>
> > Am Mittwoch, 15. Januar 2014, 00:49:28 schrieb Tom Wijsman:
> > > On Tue, 14 Jan 2014 15:37:19 -0600
> > >
> > > William Hubbs wrote:
> > > > Thoughts?
> > >
>
On 01/14/2014 06:11 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
>>
>> For users, both options are worse than the status quo.
>
> The first option would start reverting things back to ~ and users would
> have to unmask them.
>
> The second option would introduce new things to stable which may not be
> stable due to
On 01/14/2014 07:13 PM, Tom Wijsman wrote:
>>
>> For users, both options are worse than the status quo.
>
> When you do nothing then things are bound to get worse, under the
> assumption that manpower doesn't change as well as the assumption that
> the queue fills faster than stabilization bugs ge
On Tue, 14 Jan 2014 19:47:50 -0500
Michael Orlitzky wrote:
> On 01/14/2014 06:11 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
> >>
> >> For users, both options are worse than the status quo.
> >
> > The first option would start reverting things back to ~ and users
> > would have to unmask them.
> >
> > The second
On 01/14/2014 08:08 PM, Tom Wijsman wrote:
>
> This is under the assumption that the user knows of the state of the
> stabilization worsening; if the user is unaware of that change, the
> "could have done anyway" might be less common and first something bad
> would need to happen before they reali
On Tue, 14 Jan 2014 19:50:30 -0500
Michael Orlitzky wrote:
> On 01/14/2014 07:13 PM, Tom Wijsman wrote:
> >>
> >> For users, both options are worse than the status quo.
> >
> > When you do nothing then things are bound to get worse, under the
> > assumption that manpower doesn't change as well a
On Tue, 14 Jan 2014 20:11:24 -0500
Michael Orlitzky wrote:
> On 01/14/2014 08:08 PM, Tom Wijsman wrote:
> >
> > This is under the assumption that the user knows of the state of the
> > stabilization worsening; if the user is unaware of that change, the
> > "could have done anyway" might be less
On Tue, 14 Jan 2014 18:46:06 -0600
William Hubbs wrote:
> If you want to say @system, you have to include all rdepends of
> virtuals in @system and all packages that are dependencies of any
> packages in @system, at least.
>
> Keeping track of that will be difficult at best.
Trying to depclean
On 01/14/2014 08:23 PM, Tom Wijsman wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Jan 2014 20:11:24 -0500
> Michael Orlitzky wrote:
>
>> On 01/14/2014 08:08 PM, Tom Wijsman wrote:
>>>
>>> This is under the assumption that the user knows of the state of the
>>> stabilization worsening; if the user is unaware of that change
On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 08:36:10PM -0500, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
> On 01/14/2014 08:23 PM, Tom Wijsman wrote:
> > On Tue, 14 Jan 2014 20:11:24 -0500
> > Michael Orlitzky wrote:
> >
> >> On 01/14/2014 08:08 PM, Tom Wijsman wrote:
> >>>
> >>> This is under the assumption that the user knows of the
On 01/14/2014 09:09 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
>
> After the package has been sitting in ~arch for 90 days with an open
> stable request with no blockers that the arch team has not taken any
> action on. We are not talking about randomly yanking package versions,
> just doing something when arch tea
On Tue, 14 Jan 2014 20:36:10 -0500
Michael Orlitzky wrote:
> On 01/14/2014 08:23 PM, Tom Wijsman wrote:
> > On Tue, 14 Jan 2014 20:11:24 -0500
> > Michael Orlitzky wrote:
> >
> >> On 01/14/2014 08:08 PM, Tom Wijsman wrote:
> >>>
> >>> This is under the assumption that the user knows of the stat
On Tue, 14 Jan 2014 21:21:51 -0500
Michael Orlitzky wrote:
> On 01/14/2014 09:09 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
> >
> > After the package has been sitting in ~arch for 90 days with an open
> > stable request with no blockers that the arch team has not taken any
> > action on. We are not talking about
On 01/14/2014 09:34 PM, Tom Wijsman wrote:
>
>> Strictly from a user's perspective. I don't, unless I do, in which
>> case I know that I do, and I could just keyword the thing if I wanted
>> to.
>
> This is the exact same argument as in your other mail, which is your
> point of view; this is unde
On Tue, 14 Jan 2014 20:09:34 -0600
William Hubbs wrote:
> After the package has been sitting in ~arch for 90 days with an open
> stable request with no blockers that the arch team has not taken any
> action on. We are not talking about randomly yanking package versions,
> just doing something whe
On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 09:21:51PM -0500, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
> On 01/14/2014 09:09 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
> >
> > After the package has been sitting in ~arch for 90 days with an open
> > stable request with no blockers that the arch team has not taken any
> > action on. We are not talking a
On Tue, 14 Jan 2014 21:40:24 -0500
Michael Orlitzky wrote:
> I've written too many emails today, I hereby give up =)
At least you've let your voice be heard against this option. :)
It sets the ground for discussion for people that agree with you.
--
With kind regards,
Tom Wijsman (TomWij)
Ge
On Tue, 14 Jan 2014, William Hubbs wrote:
1. I think maintainers should be able to stabilize their packages on arch's
they have access to. I think this is allowed by some arch teams, but I
think it would be good to formalize it.
+1
Also, there is a substantial number of packages which contain o
On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 10:48:53AM +0700, gro...@gentoo.org wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Jan 2014, William Hubbs wrote:
> > 1. I think maintainers should be able to stabilize their packages on arch's
> > they have access to. I think this is allowed by some arch teams, but I
> > think it would be good to for
On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 10:49:48PM -0600, William Hubbs wrote:
> > Also, there is a substantial number of packages which contain only python
> > code (or perl, ruby), or only LaTeX classes, or only documentation. It
> > makes no sense to test them on each arch separately. I think maintainers
> >
On 01/15/2014 03:49 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 10:48:53AM +0700, gro...@gentoo.org wrote:
>> On Tue, 14 Jan 2014, William Hubbs wrote:
>>> 1. I think maintainers should be able to stabilize their packages on arch's
>>> they have access to. I think this is allowed by some arc
35 matches
Mail list logo
