-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 On 22/05/13 11:14 AM, Michael Mol wrote: > On 05/22/2013 11:00 AM, Jeroen Roovers wrote: >> On Wed, 22 May 2013 08:53:06 -0400 Ian Stakenvicius >> <a...@gentoo.org> wrote: >> >>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 >>> >>> On 21/05/13 07:43 PM, Thomas Sachau wrote: >>>> [ Snip reasons for why opt-out is bad ] >>> So why don't we add something to package metadata, to indicate >>> that a package is OK to be considered for auto-stabilization? >> Package or ebuild or SLOT or what? Please explain what these >> metadata.xml entries should look like. Also, since we're working >> per ebuild, and not per package, why couldn't we include this in >> each individual ebuild? What happens when you've set the >> variable, tag or whatever, and then an obscure bug pops up (and >> you're not CC'd because the bug appears in a dependent package >> three branches removed) and then your robo-call comes in for that >> ebuild? >> >> It's a neat idea, but the red tape would stretch to Alpha >> Centauri and back. IOW, it's hardly maintainable unless you can >> afford the espresso machine and all of your spare time. Common >> sense and proper research usually cuts that short. Automating >> CC'ing arch teams would probably only catch this in a very late >> stage, if at all in time before an ebuild is deemed "stable". >> >> >> jer >> > > My expectation is that something in metadata.xml would operate > *per-package* to allow the maintainer of that package to say "hey, > let me do my own thing here." Trying to set those values per-ebuild > sounds like a bug farm as those values are accidentally set wrong > from time to time. Then you try writing something to automate the > maintainer side of things, and you've got more lines of > (theoretically possibly buggy) code to worry about. > > "let me do my own thing here" would start off as "don't touch my > packages". Trying to plan more granularity than that at the outset > seems a lot like trying to tell the future. >
I agree - the metadata addition I would propose would be for metadata.xml, and would be per-package. It would also be specifically for the auto-stablereq script(s) (or for people, if this changes in the future to something a team works on) to read. Handling individual package versions -could- be done via metadata.xml, but that would ..well, jer described what that'd be like. :) Plus metadata.xml probably shouldn't change with every version bump. I think it'd be best to just handle individual package versions by opening a bug (as then the stabilizer script would just skip that $PV anyhow). All in all, this isn't much different from the idea i mentioned a while ago, about dev's putting in an "others feel free to touch my stuffs" / "touch these ebuilds and i kill your first born" entry in metadata.xml -- it's just stabilization specific. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux) iF4EAREIAAYFAlGc4q0ACgkQ2ugaI38ACPApeQEAjs5IZ6KVXWLJQJ+NNbekvyub nidlgWEVs2YXJiOLHWMA/0iArPM7T4a2hJruNw5MVmbEfYvwu66HrOFhue9LSPRA =5T7z -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
