[arch-dev-public] package signoffs

Allan McRae allan at archlinux.org
Tue Feb 9 03:49:56 EST 2010

On 09/02/10 18:38, Jan de Groot wrote:
> These days it looks like almost nobody in our developer team uses i686
> anymore. I still have a laptop running it, but I barely use it.

I think both architectures are an issues, although I agree i686 is 
worse.  There is rarely a signoff without requiring a bump these days.

As an aside, in the last month there has been five devs signoff for i686 
(me, Eric, Andrea, Vesa, Dan), but I was surprised to see three of these 
still used i686...

> I think it's time to revise our signoff policy. I was thinking about
> making it a bit more flexible:
> - signoff by 3 devs, no matter what architecture, and no bugs within 3
> days ->  move
> - signoff for both architectures, 2 each ->  move
> - no signoff, no bugs for a week ->  move

Sounds fine to me.  I know several of us give a "signoff" after a week 
if there appears to be no issues whether or not we use the package...

> For the last thing to get implemented, this can be a bit tricky.
> Sometimes developers throw something in testing, just to test something,
> and it sits there for weeks without anyone knowing why it's in testing.
> I would like to have every package that goes to testing getting
> committed with a reason in the commit message. This way we can find out
> why something is in testing and if we can easily move it out without
> breaking things.

Good commit messages should make the reason for testing clear anyway.


More information about the arch-dev-public mailing list