| 1 |
Dnia 11 stycznia 2018 08:43:32 CET, Fabian Groffen <grobian@g.o> napisał(a): |
| 2 |
>On 07-01-2018 21:25:28 +0100, Michał Górny wrote: |
| 3 |
>> I'd like to follow this with a more precise proposal. Namely, |
| 4 |
>redefine |
| 5 |
>> the current profile statuses to apply the following: |
| 6 |
>> |
| 7 |
>> a. stable -> fully tested, all depgraph breakages are errors, |
| 8 |
>> |
| 9 |
>> b. exp -> fully tested, all depgraph breakages are warnings, |
| 10 |
>> |
| 11 |
>> c. dev -> developer's playground, not tested. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
>I always was under the impression the following order (and explanation) |
| 14 |
>was the case: |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
>stable -> development -> experimental |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
>For this reason, e.g. Prefix profiles are (still) experimental, which |
| 19 |
>means they really shouldn't bother non-Prefix people. Prefix users and |
| 20 |
>developers work on an environment where those profiles are promoted to |
| 21 |
>development ones, such that repoman kicks in for their work. (At least |
| 22 |
>that was the idea.) |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
>I see you (re-)define dev as "developer's playground", and I wonder if |
| 25 |
>in that case it wouldn't be better to introduce a new one instead? |
| 26 |
> |
| 27 |
>Maybe I'm just one of a few who thinks the order is reversed now. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
Ulrich has pointed out good enough proof that the ordering should be as you say, so I'll correct my proposal. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
> |
| 32 |
>Thanks, |
| 33 |
>Fabian |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
-- |
| 37 |
Best regards, |
| 38 |
Michał Górny (by phone) |
Archives