El mié, 12-07-2017 a las 09:13 -0500, William Hubbs escribió: > On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 02:30:34PM +0200, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote: > > On 07/12/2017 01:59 PM, Michael Palimaka wrote: > > > If it's not a stable candidate then why do you use this as an example > > > against build testing-based stabilisations? If there are known issues it > > > should never reach the arch teams in the first place. > > > > This might be the crux of things, as long as automatic stabilization is > > not triggered by some set of rules (e.g 30 days in ~arch) , and still > > requires manual trigger by, preferably, the maintainer there is likely > > no issue. > > This doesn't make sense. If I have to trigger automatic stabilization, it > isn't automatic any more. > > I think with an appropriate set of rules automatic stabilization would > be fine. For example: > > - foo-2.0 has been in ~arch for 30 days > - there are no open bugs against foo-2.0 > - an older version of foo is stable > - all of the dependencies of foo-2.0 are stable > > If those conditions are met, in theory there shouldn't be any problem > with stabilizing foo-2.0. > > If foo-2.0 is not a stabilization candidate, there probably should be an > open bug in bugzilla stating why it isn't. > > Thanks, > > William >
Also please note that, when we were filling that automatic bug reports, there were still an additional 60 days timeout (I think it was 60 days.. but I don't remember if even 90 days) to allow maintainers to react. Only if nothing was noted in relevant bug reports, arches were CCed automatically by the script
