| 1 |
foser wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
>Hi, |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
>as others wrote there are some policies on how to mark stable and that |
| 6 |
>it shouldn't normally happen the day after something has been added to |
| 7 |
>~. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
>On the other hand it is just a fact that a lot of ~arch upgrading |
| 10 |
>happens trough stumbling over it (so a lot of packages stay longer than |
| 11 |
>needed in ~arch), there have been some efforts to attack this problem, |
| 12 |
>but not too successful. This is an issue that needs attention and ideas |
| 13 |
>on how to solve this in a satisfactory manner. Since you seem to |
| 14 |
>actively care about getting things to stable (not everybody does), maybe |
| 15 |
>you have some ideas on how this should be handled ? |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
How about gentoo-stats? Im not familiar with the project but maybe it |
| 19 |
could be used to correlate |
| 20 |
users using package x marked ~arch to to the number of bug reports on x |
| 21 |
and packages that depend on x ? |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Personally, I keep all my make.conf's ACCEPT_KEYWORDS commented out, and |
| 24 |
maintain my overlay in subversion with my own ideas of stable ebuilds. |
| 25 |
When I have been using a package in my overlay successfully for some |
| 26 |
time, I could do a genlop -t package-name file a bug report then leave |
| 27 |
it to the devs, but the Im not sure how well that works as I have yet to |
| 28 |
see many|any of my reports cause a change in the portage tree. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
> Bugzilla is just not |
| 34 |
>the perfect place for bump-to-stable requests & stability feedback on ~. |
| 35 |
> |
| 36 |
>- foser |
| 37 |
> |
| 38 |
> |
| 39 |
> |
| 40 |
>-- |
| 41 |
>gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
| 42 |
> |
| 43 |
> |
| 44 |
> |
| 45 |
|
| 46 |
|
| 47 |
-- |
| 48 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives