| 1 |
On Sat, 6 Dec 2003 16:54:33 +0100 |
| 2 |
Spider <spider@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> begin quote |
| 5 |
> On Sat, 6 Dec 2003 16:18:12 +0100 |
| 6 |
> Markus Nigbur <pYrania@g.o> wrote: |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> > > So it would be helpful and sufficient if I use the unstable ~x86 |
| 10 |
> > > tree and report any bug and strange behavior? |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> > |
| 13 |
> > I wouldn't say ~arch ist unstable, more like testing. |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> It -should- be testing, testing of builds. Unstable software (that |
| 16 |
> noone would think to call "stable" x86/alpha/mips/whatnot shouldn't |
| 17 |
> appear in ~arch either. |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> If there are developers out there who think that "its only ~arch, lets |
| 20 |
> put it in and never mask it stable" they should have a long long talk |
| 21 |
> with me, and a few others. Including policy documentation and sane |
| 22 |
> practices. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
I fully agree there. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
-- Markus |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
-- |
| 29 |
Markus Nigbur |
| 30 |
Gentoo Developer |
| 31 |
http://www.gentoo.org |
Archives