On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 10:00:12AM +0200, Pacho Ramos wrote: > El dom, 14-08-2016 a las 23:35 +0200, Kristian Fiskerstrand escribió: > > * Are there ways to reduce the stabilization lag of packages > > - looking into the effectiveness of ALLARCHES and its use > > - possibility for maintainer to stabilize packages themselves > > for > > architectures they have access to (including whether there > > might > > be a need for changes to gentoo infrastructure to facilitate > > this) > > Thinking about the way I think most stabilization teams are handling > the bunch stabilizations, I think the best think to do is that the > maintainer itself goes ahead stabilizing on remaining arches as soon as > the first one does the job. +1000
*snip* > I am not sure if one suggestion I did a few days ago was included (as > the thread was already really long when I was able to reply sorry), if > that is not the case, it was: > My suggestion, for now would be to modify a bit the current policy: if > I don't misremember, we can drop stable keywords for arches that are > not stabilizing the package in 90 days. The problem is that it > currently cannot be done in most of the times because it's not feasible > for the maintainer to drop the keyword and *also* all the stable > keywords of reverse deps. > > Hence, I would suggest to, apart of allowing the maintainers to drop > the keywords, to also allow them to stabilize that packages on that > arches when this timeout has expired I'm very much for this as well. Themaintainer should be able to stabilize on all arches after the timeout. That would solve the primary concern I have about the stable tree lagging. William
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
