| 1 |
Nirbheek Chauhan wrote: |
| 2 |
> [completely offtopic from this thread, please fork thread if/when replying] |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 6:40 AM, Jeroen Roovers <jer@g.o> wrote: |
| 5 |
>> Since the advent of outside overlays and layman, |
| 6 |
>> we've seen many more bugs that only got discovered when the tree was |
| 7 |
>> synced with some developer overlay, or when a Great Unveiling was done |
| 8 |
>> after limited, private, small scale testing (as with many GNOME and KDE |
| 9 |
>> releases, not to point the finger). |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> If GNOME is involved, I would like you to point some fingers and tell |
| 12 |
> us exactly where you think we went wrong; exactly which "Great |
| 13 |
> Unveiling" are you talking about? If you don't tell us what we did |
| 14 |
> wrong, you surely can't expect us to fix the problem :) |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
New dev-libs/glib, x11-libs/gtk+ and possible some other core libraries |
| 17 |
should be in tree (package.masked perhaps) so users and developers can |
| 18 |
help testing them. The current way they are moved from overlay into |
| 19 |
~arch is forcing them to be tested, where as having them in tree now, |
| 20 |
would allow people who *want* to test them to do so. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
(I'm not pointing fingers, or blaming. That's just my humble view.) |
Archives