| 1 |
В Птн, 29/10/2010 в 19:29 +0200, Michał Górny пишет: |
| 2 |
> On Fri, 29 Oct 2010 12:12:38 +0400 |
| 3 |
> Peter Volkov <pva@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
> > Please, hard mask beta versions. |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> I personally don't see a reason why he needed to do that. |
| 8 |
> If a particular package was a popular one and/or the beta version |
| 9 |
> changed a lot which might imply a lot of users getting trouble due to |
| 10 |
> it, then I would agree. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
If the package is not popular there is even more reasons to rely on the |
| 13 |
upstream's judgment and hard mask betas. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
> Please notice that 'beta' is not the same for each upstream. There are |
| 16 |
> indeed packages which are in 'beta' state for the time being -- would |
| 17 |
> you like all of them to be hard masked? |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
Until you have explicit "go for it" from upstream or there is no real |
| 20 |
pressure to use betas, please, hard mask them. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
> Or maybe you're fine with them because they don't put 'beta' in their PV? |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
I'm fine in case upstream released package for general usage and we use |
| 25 |
them. I'm not fine in case package name suggests that package is for |
| 26 |
testing but we push it on users. Beta is beta. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
And for the sake of discussion I already had not so nice talks with |
| 29 |
upstream about Gentoo and beta versions we push on users... So this |
| 30 |
request is not out of the air. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
-- |
| 33 |
Peter. |
Archives