Alex Howells wrote:
> On 03/02/2008, Markus Hauschild <hauschild.markus@...> wrote:
>> If you really want to test ~arch packets you don't necessarily need
>> ~arch stages to download, you can just switch your Installation to
>> ~arch and then file bugs etc.
> 
> .. which may not be received too well. There is a perception that
> Developers *support* ~arch, which is a skewed outlook; it's there for
> testing, it is *not* meant to be used by 99.5% of end users.  It is a
> means to an end, a way to track packages which *may* be stable, a QA
> process.
> 
> ie:  The following would/should be entirely acceptable:
> 
> <User>  I'm running ~arch of libfoo and it's breaking appwoo, help!
>         Need this to work, really *REALLY* badly!
> 
> <Dev>   We're aware of those issues, but libfoo works fine for most
>         of the other apps which require it.  No ETA on the fix,
>         tough sh*t for running ~arch on a critical box.
> 
> <User>  Arrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrgh!
> 
> If you're interested in helping that QA process, most of the
> architecture teams now have an 'Arch Tester' (AT) setup you could help
> out with...

Well ... I've been running ~x86 and ~amd64 for a long time and I can't 
remember an instance where I needed to drop back to stable for the 
things I regularly use, such as R, maxima, Ruby, Lyx, and I can't 
remember a time when I needed to drop back to stable for a core 
component like the kernel, gcc, perl, or python either. But -- that's 
x86 and amd64 -- it might be much riskier on something less common, like 
powerpc.

-- 
gentoo-releng@g.o mailing list