On Fri, 20 May 2005 15:51:51 -0500 Brian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: | Wouldn't it be better from a QA perspective to go back to the (really) | old policy of dropping anything you can't test on. I know that puts | more work on you guys, but this is only going to get worse as we get | more devs. Wouldn't it be better to nip this in the bud now. Maybe | broaden the arch teams by giving some devs access to remote boxes.
Not really. Dropping to ~arch when bumping works well. Sure, ~arch does occasionally end up broken, but it's better than us lagging behind massively. There're too many packages and not enough people these days... The assumption is, if foo-1.2 works on, say, sparc, then foo-1.3 probably will too to the extent that we're happy for it to go to ~sparc. On the other hand, we're *not* confident enough in upstreams' abilities to always put out perfect releases that we're prepared to move things to stable without explicit testing. See, we *really* don't want arch to get broken. We'd rather ~arch didn't break either, of course, but taking the occasional hit there is acceptable if it lets us keep everything up to date. | Get every dev access to all the supported arches (some of this could | probably be done with emulators of some sort, qemu or somesuch). Make | them test on every arch before they change any keywords. Not gonna happen. Emulators don't cut it and won't find all the problems (but they will find a load of other bogus non-issues). Plus, from experience I'd say that at least half our devs wouldn't have a clue where to start when doing arch testing... Then there's the issue of most alt-archs having far higher QA standards than x86 anyway, and us not wanting to sink to what x86 considers acceptable for marking stable. From experience -- the current policy as it is now *works*, so long as everyone follows it. -- Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (Vim, Shell tools, Fluxbox, Cron) Mail : ciaranm at gentoo.org Web : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm
pgp2HGtPZzQ6m.pgp
Description: PGP signature
