Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: rfc: revisiting our stabilization policy

[Tom Wijsman]

On Thu, 23 Jan 2014 18:12:42 +0000
"Steven J. Long" <slong@××××××××××××××××××.uk> wrote:

> On Mon, Jan 20, 2014, Tom Wijsman wrote:
> > On Sun, 19 Jan 2014, Christopher Head wrote:
> > > If stable really is falling behind and the backlog is always
> > > growing, obviously something has to be done. I just don't want
> > > "something" to mean "don't have a stable tree". The stable tree
> > > provides me with a benefit. If standards have to slip a bit to
> > > maintain timeliness, then I'd prefer a stable tree that's as
> > > stable as practical, accepting reality-- perhaps where users are
> > > able to submit reports of working packages, or where we let
> > > platform-agnostic packages be stabilized after one arch has
> > > tested, or various of the other suggestions in this thread. Just
> > > not no stable tree at all.
> >
> > +1 as long as we can find effort and ways to keep it around.
>
> What? Without a stable tree, Gentoo is useless afaic.

It moves us closer to upstream releases, a little more bleeding edge; a
lot of users and developers run that already, it is found to be useful.

> I don't think that's what was being proposed, though. The question was
> really the old complaint about slow architectures; the "-* arch"
> solution sounds like the most reasonable definition of "dropping"
> keywords, in the absence of AT communication otherwise.

Dropping keywords and specifying -* are a world apart of each other.

The former means that it is not ready for wide stable or testing users,
the latter means that it has been tested to not work at all;
furthermore, we need to explicitly specify which arches in that case.

-- 
With kind regards,

Tom Wijsman (TomWij)
Gentoo Developer

E-mail address  : TomWij@g.o
GPG Public Key  : 6D34E57D
GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2  ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D