On 12/07/17 03:16, William Hubbs wrote: > On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 11:47:32PM +1000, Michael Palimaka wrote: >> On 07/11/2017 11:06 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: >>> On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 8:59 AM, Michael Palimaka <kensing...@gentoo.org> >>> wrote: >>>> On 07/11/2017 09:29 AM, Andrew Savchenko wrote: >>>>> >>>>> 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 >>>> >>> >>> I think that in practice arch teams don't do have the stuff on that >>> wiki page. Maybe some people do, but back when I was an amd64 AT I >>> don't think anybody went testing multiple USE combinations for a >>> typical package. >> >> Everything on that page is deliberately a suggestion only, and not >> necessarily specific to stabilisation testing. >> >> In the end, we've never been able to reach any consensus on what exactly >> an arch tester should do. Personally, I think we should just switch to >> fully-automated, build-only testing for stabilistions unless the >> maintainer opts otherwise (something that largely happens in practice >> already). The main risk of breakage of a package moving from testing to >> stable is always at build time anyway. > > I would not be opposed to this. As a maintainer, I am as guilty as the > next guy of not filing stable requests or not stabilizing packages.
As the next guy, I also +1 this. As is often explained in #gentoo, "stable" and "testing" for upstream have a different meaning to "stable" and "testing" for Gentoo - in fact, beyond ensuring it builds, any testing performed by a downstream distro is additional testing to what upstream have already released. I can understand the concern with automatically stabilising a package that has some flaw affecting users, but the two things i see are that upstream have already released said flawed package, and Gentoo simply doesn't have the manpower to perform comprehensive runtime testing of all packages. If a maintainer is aware of a significant issue with a package that should prevent it from being marked as stable, then a bug should be filed acting as a block to the automated stabilisation. Users aware of an issue are just as likely to file a bug as well, also preventing stabilisation of packages with some known issue. Therefore packages with known issues don't get stabilised automatically. Similarly, if the maintainer believes more comprehensive testing should be done (eg. for critical base-system packages) a note could be made somewhere of that requirement (metadata.xml?), meaning significantly reduced workload for people like ago (if the maintainer doesn't stabilise it beforehand). -- Sam Jorna (wraeth) GnuPG ID: D6180C26
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
