| 1 |
Aron Griffis wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
>Alin Nastac wrote: [Wed Mar 09 2005, 05:57:15PM EST] |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
>>No gentooer |
| 7 |
>>expects from a ~arch ebuild to be stable, so the sky would not fall if |
| 8 |
>>you made a mistake and release it under this keyword. When I hear "I |
| 9 |
>>cannot mark foo library as ~arch because I don't know how to test it" |
| 10 |
>>smells like excuse to me. |
| 11 |
>> |
| 12 |
>> |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
>Earlier you said that you mark ebuilds stable after 30 days with no |
| 15 |
>bugs. Now you're suggesting that marking ~arch by mistake isn't a big |
| 16 |
>deal. I don't wish to beat up on you further, but this viewpoint can |
| 17 |
>lead to stable ebuilds in the tree that don't even build over the |
| 18 |
>course of one month (other than February ;-) |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
I always test unpack/compile/install functionality of the ebuild before |
| 23 |
submittion, even if the submittion means only a script change. |
| 24 |
So, from my point of view, every ebuild of mine at least must get |
| 25 |
installed. Of course, it doesn't mean that install process will succeed |
| 26 |
on any other machines than mine... |
| 27 |
I'm only saying that no one will take your head if you do a mistake, but |
| 28 |
when you're not doing nothing because you are fearing of a mistake - |
| 29 |
this is problem. To err is human, you know. |
| 30 |
As for marking an ebuild stable over a month, this is the ideal case. On |
| 31 |
average, I mark an ebuild stable on x86 after 2 months. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
Again, I want to emphasize that I didn't break anything in portage tree, |
| 34 |
even if I have a "shoddy" attitude regarding Gentoo's QA. |
Archives