Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Fwd: [gentoo-dev-announce] Call for items for September 13 council meeting
Date: Sun, 18 Sep 2011 16:15:12
Message-Id: CAGfcS_=knNjJAbNayxGbh1dXgUbEKfpk55QP=QFqJebO+Hzy2g@mail.gmail.com
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] Fwd: [gentoo-dev-announce] Call for items for September 13 council meeting by Ciaran McCreesh
On Sep 18, 2011 12:05 PM, "Ciaran McCreesh" <ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com>
wrote:
> On Sun, 18 Sep 2011 14:20:34 +0000 > "Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto" <jmbsvicetto@g.o> wrote: > > As we're talking about updating profiles EAPI, what do we need to get > > to be able to mask use flags for the stable tree, but not the testing > > tree? > > Every time this has come up, the conclusion has been "it's a horrible > idea from a QA perspective, since it would mean that testing something > in ~arch would be different to testing it in arch". >
Isn't that already true from a dependency standpoint? I do see your point, but the concept of rolling out a risky flag to the brave first does make sense. I think the biggest issue with ~arch is when things get deployed there for a very long time before hitting stable. That applies to libraries, baselayout-2, or flags. Things shouldn't go to ~arch unless we have a plan to make them stable (excepting one-offs). Rich