| 1 |
William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: |
| 2 |
> IMHO I think it should be up to the package maintainer how close they |
| 3 |
> want to follow upstream. With regard to development, progress, testing, |
| 4 |
> qa, feedback. I think it's a very good thing, since it allows things to |
| 5 |
> be caught before actual releases, during development. |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> I know when I am developing stuff, it's way easier to address during the |
| 8 |
> process rather than after the fact. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> But if there are any policies or etc. I surely do not want to be |
| 11 |
> breaking them. Also this is not broken or really experimental stuff. If |
| 12 |
> it was I would either p.mask, or put in an overlay. |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> Although I feel things tend to get the greatest exposure and chance of |
| 15 |
> user testing and feedback, if it's in tree |
| 16 |
There is a bit of contradiction in what you said there. |
| 17 |
Either the package is well tested, and should go into the tree, first |
| 18 |
with ~arch keywords, and then eventually with arch keywords, or |
| 19 |
it is experimental, and as such has to be outside of our main tree. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Thus you can either want to test stuff by giving it more exposure, |
| 22 |
which implies the stuff is experimental, or you have stable stuff, |
| 23 |
but then you shouldn't be talking about the development cycle of the |
| 24 |
said software. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
-- |
| 29 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives