Hi
As many of you have already noticed, there are some arches that are quite
slow on stabilizations. This leads to deprecated stabilizations e.g a
package is stabilized after 60 days which makes that version of
the specific package obsolete and not worth to stabilize anymore.
I would suggest to i
On 06/27/10 17:04, Markos Chandras wrote:
[snip]
> Whilst I do understand that these arches are understaffed and they can't keep
> up with the increased stabilization load like x86/amd64 do, I still
> think that slow stabilization leads to an obsolete stable tree which I
> doesn't make sense to me
On Sun, 2010-06-27 at 18:04 +0300, Markos Chandras wrote:
> Moreover, slow arches introduce another problem as well. If a package is
> marked stabled for their arch, but this package is quite old, and they fail to
> stabilize a new version, we ( as maintainers ) can't drop the very old
> ( and obso
On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 11:47:49AM -0400, Olivier Crête wrote:
> On Sun, 2010-06-27 at 18:04 +0300, Markos Chandras wrote:
> > Moreover, slow arches introduce another problem as well. If a package is
> > marked stabled for their arch, but this package is quite old, and they fail
> > to
> > stabili
On 06/27/2010 06:47 PM, Olivier Crête wrote:
> On Sun, 2010-06-27 at 18:04 +0300, Markos Chandras wrote:
>> Moreover, slow arches introduce another problem as well. If a package is
>> marked stabled for their arch, but this package is quite old, and they fail
>> to
>> stabilize a new version, we (
On Sun, 27 Jun 2010 18:04:45 +0300
Markos Chandras wrote:
> Whilst I do understand that these arches are understaffed and they
> can't keep up with the increased stabilization load like x86/amd64
> do, I still think that slow stabilization leads to an obsolete stable
> tree which I doesn't make se
On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 5:04 PM, Markos Chandras wrote:
> Thoughts?
If Gentoo doesn't seem to have time to maintain the stable tree, why
have it in the first place? What really is the advantage of having a
stable tree?
On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 06:53:56PM +0200, Auke Booij wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 5:04 PM, Markos Chandras wrote:
> > Thoughts?
>
> If Gentoo doesn't seem to have time to maintain the stable tree, why
> have it in the first place? What really is the advantage of having a
> stable tree?
>
Wha
On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 05:38:34PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Jun 2010 18:04:45 +0300
> Markos Chandras wrote:
> > Whilst I do understand that these arches are understaffed and they
> > can't keep up with the increased stabilization load like x86/amd64
> > do, I still think that sl
On Sun, 27 Jun 2010 20:22:33 +0300
Markos Chandras wrote:
> > Which does Gentoo care about more: slightly increased convenience
> > for most developers, or considerably increased inconvenience for
> > users of minority archs?
> >
> I don't follow you. Increased convenience just for the devs? How?
On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 06:43:30PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>
> Which is the decision to make: make things very difficult for minority
> arch users, who get screwed over royally every time keywords are
> dropped, or make things slightly more inconvenient for developers, who
> have to keep som
2010-06-27 17:04:45 Markos Chandras napisał(a):
> Hi
>
> As many of you have already noticed, there are some arches that are quite
> slow on stabilizations. This leads to deprecated stabilizations e.g a
> package is stabilized after 60 days which makes that version of
> the specific package obsole
On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 7:16 PM, Markos Chandras wrote:
> What? I am talking about exotic arches and I didn't say to drop to
> entire stable tree. Just to shrink it in order to keep it up to date
> more easily
But my question stands: what really is the advantage of having a
stable tree, when you c
On Sun, 27 Jun 2010 19:01:13 +0100
Markos Chandras wrote:
> Please explain me why keeping foobar-1.0 ( Released in 10/12/2009 ) is
> in favor of a ppc64 stable user when amd64/x86 has foobar-2.1.3 (
> Released 60 days ago ) already stabled for them
Because it's known to work. That's the point of
On Sun, 2010-06-27 at 18:54 +0300, Markos Chandras wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 11:47:49AM -0400, Olivier Crête wrote:
> > On Sun, 2010-06-27 at 18:04 +0300, Markos Chandras wrote:
> > > Moreover, slow arches introduce another problem as well. If a package is
> > > marked stabled for their arch
On Sun, 2010-06-27 at 18:04 +0300, Markos Chandras wrote:
> As many of you have already noticed, there are some arches that are quite
> slow on stabilizations. This leads to deprecated stabilizations e.g a
> package is stabilized after 60 days which makes that version of
> the specific package obso
On Sun, 2010-06-27 at 17:45 +0200, Patrick Lauer wrote:
> If possible I think we should try to keep stable keywords. So how can we
> help? I'm not sure how I could help e.g. PPC - I don't have any hardware
> I can test on, and I'm not aware of remotely accessible dev boxen.
There are options, an o
On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 07:37:39PM +0100, Tony Chainsaw Vroon wrote:
> On Sun, 2010-06-27 at 18:04 +0300, Markos Chandras wrote:
> > As many of you have already noticed, there are some arches that are quite
> > slow on stabilizations. This leads to deprecated stabilizations e.g a
> > package is sta
On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 08:15:32PM +0200, Auke Booij wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 7:16 PM, Markos Chandras wrote:
> > What? I am talking about exotic arches and I didn't say to drop to
> > entire stable tree. Just to shrink it in order to keep it up to date
> > more easily
> But my question st
On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 02:21:13PM -0400, Olivier Crête wrote:
>
> That's ok. That way those users will know that no one from the arch team
> maintains that packages and they will know it has a lower level of QA.
> And the users will be able to make a choice. Instead of pretending that
> it is mai
On Sun, 27 Jun 2010 22:55:42 +0300
Markos Chandras wrote:
> Oh come on. I never said to stop supporting those arches. I just said
> to shrink their stable tree. What do you suggest? Pretend to have
> active exotic arches just to look shiny and pretty?
Claiming to support an exotic arch but forcin
On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 09:01:55PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Jun 2010 22:55:42 +0300
> Markos Chandras wrote:
> > Oh come on. I never said to stop supporting those arches. I just said
> > to shrink their stable tree. What do you suggest? Pretend to have
> > active exotic arches ju
On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 8:34 PM, Markos Chandras wrote:
> As many of you have already noticed, there are some arches that are quite
> slow on stabilizations. This leads to deprecated stabilizations e.g a
> package is stabilized after 60 days which makes that version of
> the specific package obsol
On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 01:59:42AM +0530, Nirbheek Chauhan wrote:
>
> I'm saying that a 30 days rule is too strict for most packages and
> herds. I don't think such a rule will fly very far. Even a 90 day rule
> or a 6 month rule is too strict for GNOME packages. I personally
> empathize with the
On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 3:08 AM, Markos Chandras wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 01:59:42AM +0530, Nirbheek Chauhan wrote:
>> Now *this* is a problem. We have some bugs, some security bugs that
>> have been completely ignored by some arches. Mips as usual is one, but
>> recently hppa (and to a mu
On Sun, 27 Jun 2010 11:47:49 -0400
Olivier Crête wrote:
> I'd propose waiting a bit longer than 30 days.. Maybe 90 days, and
> then just drop the old ebuild. These arches will slowly lose stable
> keywords until their stable tree gets to a size that they can manage.
> And everyone will be winners
Markos Chandras said:
> On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 08:15:32PM +0200, Auke Booij wrote:
> > On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 7:16 PM, Markos Chandras
wrote:
> > > What? I am talking about exotic arches and I didn't say to drop to
> > > entire stable tree. Just to shrink it in order to keep it up to
> > > dat
On E, 2010-06-28 at 09:49 +0200, Thilo Bangert wrote:
> Markos Chandras said:
> > On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 08:15:32PM +0200, Auke Booij wrote:
> > > On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 7:16 PM, Markos Chandras
> wrote:
> > > > What? I am talking about exotic arches and I didn't say to drop to
> > > > entire
28 matches
Mail list logo
