Re: [gentoo-alt] [PREFIX] Stable Keywords?

[Elias Pipping]

On Thu, Nov 22, 2007 at 06:10:03AM +1000, Peter Ansell wrote:
> On 22/11/2007, Fabian Groffen <grobian@g.o> wrote:
> > On 21-11-2007 07:55:04 -0600, Jeremy wrote:
> > > True, and we are adding more obscure platforms often. I don't know how
> > > many people use ia64-hpux for example, but it *seems* that I am one of
> > > the few if only besides haubi because he has done alot of work on the
> > > tree for me. I don't have time or resources to maintain a stable branch
> > > by myself and report back to you.
> > >
> > > Maybe here is a better solution:
> > > Make the "auto-sync" script mark everything ~arch until it has been
> > > tested by some members of the community then we could create a stabilize
> > > request on b.g.o. - if people want to devote some time to it, they can
> > > and they can lead the effort.
> >
> > That's sort of the current solution without stable keywords.  If there
> > are people that want to do the job, fine with me, syncing will always
> > produce a new ~arch ebuild, not sure what I should do for the updates
> > inside an ebuild (like an added patch - could break).  Something tells
> > me I should keep it stable if it was, otherwise I probably break the
> > deptree.
>
> It is not as likely that patches to "stable" ebuilds will break in
> most cases, though it is always possible. I would go with keep a given
> version stable after patching unless someone reports a bug with it, as
> there aren't the resources to do rechecks on every patch on every
> ebuild for the prefix.

Isn't the whole purpose of stable keywords not having to report a bug
first? People on stable don't want to hit bugs, that's why they pay the
price of being a little outdated. So stable keywords should make it as
unlikely for such an incident to occur

If a bug is reported for an ebuild masked as testing, it's masked and
the bug is worked on. That might not help the guy who hit the problem,
though, who might now need to rebootstrap.


-- Elias