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

[Michael Haubenwallner]

On Tue, 2007-11-20 at 15:57 -0600, matt hull wrote:
> i think we should use stable and testing in the current tree.  no
> different from other hurds.  after 30 days with no major bugs and
> tested mark the package as stable.    as you said you dont have any
> time, so you could just leave it unstable till there is time

+1

>
> i would like to see this for system packages so a change doesnt break
> my system and force a reinstall.

+2

Having at least system+svn stable would be really useful, especially for
bootstrapping.

/haubi/

>
> matt
>
> On Nov 20, 2007, at 1:15 PM, Fabian Groffen wrote:
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Per subject, let's have some discussion on stable keywords in Prefix.
> >
> > I've always been against them, while others would like to have them.
> > I've basically been against them simply because I don't have time to
> > also maintain a stable tree/prefix/install.
> >
> > With the number of ebuilds in the tree increasing, I simply cannot
> > cope
> > with the volume any more as I used to do.  This is mainly the case for
> > when I'm syncing the tree and approving each ebuild manually, merging
> > conflicts etc.  I have no time to compile each package before I commit
> > it, but I try to check it at least unpacks.
> >
> > Now I was wondering, maybe I could sync new ebuilds into ~arch,
> > while we
> > then make ebuilds arch when they appear to work on the works.  Not
> > sure
> > how much this really "fixes", but just a random thought to reduce the
> > damage of semi-automagic syncing...
> >
> > Any thoughts?
> >
> > --
> > Fabian Groffen
> > Gentoo on a different level
> > --
> > gentoo-alt@g.o mailing list
> >
>
-- 
Michael Haubenwallner
Gentoo on a different level

-- 
gentoo-alt@g.o mailing list