| 1 |
On Tue, 2005-09-06 at 12:25 -0400, Luis F. Araujo wrote: |
| 2 |
> Chris Gianelloni wrote: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> >On Sun, 2005-09-04 at 22:46 +0200, Simon Stelling wrote: |
| 5 |
> > |
| 6 |
> > |
| 7 |
> >>Stuart Herbert wrote: |
| 8 |
> >> |
| 9 |
> >> |
| 10 |
> >>>I've no personal problem with arch teams sometimes needing to do their |
| 11 |
> >>>own thing, provided it's confined to a specific class of package. |
| 12 |
> >>>Outside of the core packages required to boot & maintain a platform, |
| 13 |
> >>>when is there ever a need for arch maintainers to decide that they know |
| 14 |
> >>>better than package maintainers? |
| 15 |
> >>> |
| 16 |
> >>> |
| 17 |
> >>I assume you're talking of the case where arch team and maintainer's arch are |
| 18 |
> >>the same. I think normally package maintainers can decide better whether their |
| 19 |
> >>package should go stable on their arch than an arch team, as they get all the |
| 20 |
> >>bugs for it. On the other hand, we can't define a "maintainer arch" in many |
| 21 |
> >>cases, so either we leave the authority to the arch team or we'll just have an |
| 22 |
> >>x86 arch team without the expected effects. |
| 23 |
> >> |
| 24 |
> >> |
| 25 |
> > |
| 26 |
> >I still think that the concept of a "maintainer arch" is completely |
| 27 |
> >broken anyway. I like the idea of adding something like a "maint" |
| 28 |
> >KEYWORD, or something similar to mark that the ebuild is considered |
| 29 |
> >"stable" material by the maintainer. |
| 30 |
> > |
| 31 |
> |
| 32 |
> This keyword would be independent of any arch right? |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
Correct. |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
It would be a KEYWORD or some other variable that says "I'm the |
| 37 |
maintainer, and I say it is ready to go stable" without relying on any |
| 38 |
particular architecture to be an indicator of stability. |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
-- |
| 41 |
Chris Gianelloni |
| 42 |
Release Engineering - Strategic Lead/QA Manager |
| 43 |
Games - Developer |
| 44 |
Gentoo Linux |
Archives