[arch-dev-public] Signoffs on simple version bumps (was: [signoff] man-pages 3.08-1)

[Eric Belanger]

On Wed, 27 Aug 2008, Aaron Griffin wrote:

> On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 1:26 PM, Dan McGee <dpmcgee at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 1:22 PM, Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 1:03 PM, Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 11:58 AM, Dan McGee <dpmcgee at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 11:25 AM, Andreas Radke <a.radke at arcor.de> wrote:
>>>>>> too slow. now please signoff 3.08-1
>>>>>
>>>>> New proposal here. For packages that meet the following criteria (this
>>>>> was on-the-fly, I really don't think it needs to be set in stone):
>>>>> 1. Frequent releases (anything 2 weeks or quicker)
>>>>> 2. Little to no system impact if broken (initscripts would not fit the
>>>>> bill, for instance, but man-pages are not critical)
>>>>> 3. Can be easily verified by the maintainer to be working
>>>>>
>>>>> Can we skip the signoff procedure? The maintainer is of course free to
>>>>> still ask for it, but it would keep our pipeline from getting
>>>>> logjammed by stuff that really isn't in need of serious testing.
>>>>>
>>>>> Maybe just have list of packages in core we agree can be moved without
>>>>> signoffs, such as man-pages, tzdata, etc.
>>>>
>>>> Yeah, I thought about this in the beginning, but it's easier to make a
>>>> blanket rule than to start adding exceptions.
>>>>
>>>> I'm interested in hearing opinions on this.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Dusty: Do you think it would be possible to add a DB table for
>>> packages excluded from signoffs? If we can do this, and integrate it
>>> with the web interface for signoffs, I can manage the actual contents
>>> of the table myself (or, well, anyone with django admin access can).
>>
>> Wouldn't this be overkill? Sometimes a package would want signoffs,
>> other times you may not. And the signoff links don't show up for
>> packages not in testing anyway. And what happens when packages in
>> extra get thrown into testing? I guess it looks like a can of worms
>> not worth opening to me.
>
> That's a good point. You're talking about skipping testing altogether.
>
> Hmm, I'd have to think on this. Even though man-pages is not system
> critical, I like the concept of preserving the integrity of [core].

I wonder how many packages would fit in the 3 conditions suggested by Dan. 
If only a few packages would be in the exception list, then it won't 
really solve the logjam problem. So we might decide to still signoff all 
core packages just to be consistent.  I believe the logjam is mostly due 
to packages that very few of us use (or know how to test) so the number of 
potential testers is limited.

>
> I think, if we all start using the web-based signoffs a little more,
> this might become a quicker process. I was able to do a scan down the
> list and signoff on a few very quickly.
>
>

Is the web-based signoff testing completed? Then it should be used for 
signoff.


-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.