[gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] Future of gentoo's stable and unstable trees: what are your thoughts?

Rich Freeman posted on Mon, 31 Jul 2017 20:55:05 -0400 as excerpted: > On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 8:24 PM, Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote: >> Rich Freeman posted on Mon, 31 Jul 2017 11:11:24 -0400 as excerpted: >> >>> On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 10:52 AM, Alec Warner >>> wrote:

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] Future of gentoo's stable and unstable trees: what are your thoughts?

On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 8:24 PM, Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote: > Rich Freeman posted on Mon, 31 Jul 2017 11:11:24 -0400 as excerpted: > >> On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 10:52 AM, Alec Warner >> wrote: >>> >>> >>> Sorry, to be clear the conclusion I was hoping to draw is that

[gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] Future of gentoo's stable and unstable trees: what are your thoughts?

Rich Freeman posted on Mon, 31 Jul 2017 11:11:24 -0400 as excerpted: > On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 10:52 AM, Alec Warner > wrote: >> >> >> Sorry, to be clear the conclusion I was hoping to draw is that one has >> 2 repos instead of 1. >> >> 1) Rolling. >> 2) Stable. >> >> Rolling

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] Future of gentoo's stable and unstable trees: what are your thoughts?

On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 05:56:25PM -0400, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote > If upstream does a new release, fixes bugs. Gentoo marks a previous > release stable. It is stabilizing a package with issues fixed upstream. > That does not make sense. Gentoo issues maybe good, but not upstreams. > > I

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] Future of gentoo's stable and unstable trees: what are your thoughts?

On Fri, 28 Jul 2017 21:45:57 + (UTC) Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote: > William L. Thomson Jr. posted on Fri, 28 Jul 2017 16:10:42 -0400 as > excerpted: > > > It seems odd that upstream will release a package. Just for > > downstream to consider it not stable. Did it get messed up during

[gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] Future of gentoo's stable and unstable trees: what are your thoughts?

William L. Thomson Jr. posted on Fri, 28 Jul 2017 16:10:42 -0400 as excerpted: > It seems odd that upstream will release a package. Just for downstream > to consider it not stable. Did it get messed up during packaging? Did it > get messed up by the distro? The whole lag thing does not make sense

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] Future of gentoo's stable and unstable trees: what are your thoughts?

On Tue, 2017-07-25 at 11:03 +0200, Agostino Sarubbo wrote: > > 1) Don't file keywordreq, since noone work on them. File directly > stablereq. This does not make sense to me. If we want to go this route we should probably state a policy instead that new dependencies for already keyworded

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] Future of gentoo's stable and unstable trees: what are your thoughts?

On 07/25/2017 06:22 AM, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 9:10 AM, Michael Palimaka > wrote: >> >> The 30 day waiting period is useful for smoking out major upstream bugs, >> but can't replace stabilisation integration testing. For example, >> package foobar

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] Future of gentoo's stable and unstable trees: what are your thoughts?

On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 3:45 PM, Markus Meier wrote: > On Tue, 25 Jul 2017 11:03:30 +0200 > Agostino Sarubbo wrote: > >> On Monday 24 July 2017 22:22:23 Sergei Trofimovich wrote: >> > 1. lack of automation >> I'd summarize the techical steps into: >> 1) get

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] Future of gentoo's stable and unstable trees: what are your thoughts?

On Tue, 25 Jul 2017 11:03:30 +0200 Agostino Sarubbo wrote: > On Monday 24 July 2017 22:22:23 Sergei Trofimovich wrote: > > 1. lack of automation > I'd summarize the techical steps into: > 1) get the list of packages > 2) test > 3) commit to git > 4) write on bugzilla > > 1 is

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] Future of gentoo's stable and unstable trees: what are your thoughts?

Michael Palimaka wrote: > The 30 day waiting period is useful for smoking out major upstream bugs, > but can't replace stabilisation integration testing. For example, > package foobar may build fine in ~arch but fails in stable because it > needs a newer libbaz. So that's either because of an

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] Future of gentoo's stable and unstable trees: what are your thoughts?

On wto, 2017-07-25 at 22:59 +1000, Michael Palimaka wrote: > On 07/25/2017 07:22 AM, Sergei Trofimovich wrote: > > 2. Q: How to make arch testing faster and easier? > > > >A: - KEYWORDREQ/STABLEREQ bugs not marked as "runtime testing > > required" will be automatically tested and

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] Future of gentoo's stable and unstable trees: what are your thoughts?

El mar, 25-07-2017 a las 23:10 +1000, Michael Palimaka escribió: > On 07/25/2017 05:22 PM, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote: > > First, the assumption in our processes seems to be that many or > > important bugs will be due to architecture-specific differences, and I > > wonder if that assumption really

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] Future of gentoo's stable and unstable trees: what are your thoughts?

El mar, 25-07-2017 a las 22:59 +1000, Michael Palimaka escribió: > On 07/25/2017 07:22 AM, Sergei Trofimovich wrote: > > 2. Q: How to make arch testing faster and easier? > > > >    A: - KEYWORDREQ/STABLEREQ bugs not marked as "runtime testing > > required" will be automatically tested

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] Future of gentoo's stable and unstable trees: what are your thoughts?

On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 9:10 AM, Michael Palimaka wrote: > > The 30 day waiting period is useful for smoking out major upstream bugs, > but can't replace stabilisation integration testing. For example, > package foobar may build fine in ~arch but fails in stable because it

[gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] Future of gentoo's stable and unstable trees: what are your thoughts?

On 07/25/2017 05:22 PM, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote: > First, the assumption in our processes seems to be that many or > important bugs will be due to architecture-specific differences, and I > wonder if that assumption really holds up. Do arch testers for a smaller > arch often find problems that were

[gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] Future of gentoo's stable and unstable trees: what are your thoughts?

On 07/25/2017 07:22 AM, Sergei Trofimovich wrote: > 2. Q: How to make arch testing faster and easier? > >A: - KEYWORDREQ/STABLEREQ bugs not marked as "runtime testing > required" will be automatically tested and keyworded. > > [handwave] automated tinderbox setup would help a

[gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] Future of gentoo's stable and unstable trees: what are your thoughts?

Hello Sergei, thanks to bring into the topic which nowadays is a common point of discussion :) On Monday 24 July 2017 22:22:23 Sergei Trofimovich wrote: > 1. lack of automation I'd summarize the techical steps into: 1) get the list of packages 2) test 3) commit to git 4) write on bugzilla 1

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] Future of gentoo's stable and unstable trees: what are your thoughts?

On Tue, 2017-07-25 at 04:34 +, Duncan wrote: > > Automating stabilization and automated keyword dropping on timeouts > seems  > the only other practical choice, as unfortunately, "stale" is what > we  > have today in practice, if not in name. Looking at https://repology.org/statistics stable

[gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] Future of gentoo's stable and unstable trees: what are your thoughts?

Rich Freeman posted on Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:52:40 -0400 as excerpted: > On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 7:22 PM, Peter Stuge wrote: >> >> I hold a perhaps radical view: I would like to simply remove stable. >> >> I continue to feel that maintaining two worlds (stable+unstable) >> carries

[gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] Future of gentoo's stable and unstable trees: what are your thoughts?

El lun, 24-07-2017 a las 22:22 +0100, Sergei Trofimovich escribió: > 4. Q: How to push more packages into STABLE? > >    A: File automatic STABLEREQ bugs more aggressively if no known bugs >   exist for a package version. The rough workflow is the following: > >   - Grab a list of