On 07/11/2017 09:29 AM, Andrew Savchenko wrote: > On Mon, 10 Jul 2017 22:17:34 +0200 Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote: >> On 07/10/2017 10:02 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: >>> On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 3:57 PM, Andrew Savchenko <birc...@gentoo.org> >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> On Mon, 10 Jul 2017 13:49:40 -0400 Rich Freeman wrote: >>>> >>>>> In the case of amd64 we already >>>>> encourage individual package maintainers to stabilize their own >>>>> packages >>>> >>>> Huh? Have our rules changed? As per devmanual[1] and GLEP 40[2] >>>> stabilization must be carried out by arch teams, unless a special >>>> arrangement is done between a developer and a team. >>>> >>> >>> The docs are probably out of date - I'm not sure if the policy is >>> documented anywhere. However it has been a fairly longstanding policy >>> at this point that amd64 allows individual maintainers to stabilize >>> their own packages. >>> >> >> We looked after it for wg-stable (which died out as a result of rather >> low participation, maybe it should be rebooted if people feel like >> discussing this again), there isn't any authoritative policy allowing >> it, GLEP:40 explicitly removes the possibility to do it for x86. That >> said, for a number of packages maintainer stabilization can likely make >> sense, the opposite view is four-eyes principle, it is always good to >> have someone else build-test etc, but this is greatly helped by >> tinderboxing efforts (thanks toralf) etc. So one likely output if >> wg-stable is to come up with something would be a replacement GLEP for >> 40 that matches the current state, and also kernel auto-stabiliation (as >> discussed in [section 3.2 (Kernel)] > > So, am I understanding this correctly that right now a package > stabilization by maintainer without explicit permit from an arch > team will be the violation of active and approved policies?
As Rich pointed out, amd64 team has long allowed maintainers to perform their own stabilisations. I've asked x86 team about this in the past, and they too were OK with maintainer stabilisations. It would be nice to improve documentation of this, but it is certainly not a policy violation just because some ancient document was never updated. > Despite the maintainer-driven stabilization seems to be "a fairly > longstanding policy" I'm reluctant to do such stabilization myself, > because anyone may point out later that such action is a violation > of the written policies and I will have nothing to defend me. > > Even if such stabilization is allowed, there are unanswered > questions here: > - is following seciton 4.1 from wg recommendations is sufficient? > - should developer test each stabilization candidate on an > up-to-date stable setup? The guidelines from that document are ripped straight out of the devmanual and are a good starting point but rather generic. You can find some more detailed suggestions on things to consider while testing on the wiki: https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Package_testing
