| 1 |
On Tue, 2005-06-28 at 16:30 -0700, Ilya A. Volynets-Evenbakh wrote: |
| 2 |
> > but I have a dev in the |
| 3 |
> >dotnet herd who's really pretty upset right now as a result of such |
| 4 |
> >apparently scathing comments accusing him of being an evil conspirator, |
| 5 |
> >a wrecker, and traitor, when it wasn't even *him* who introduced the |
| 6 |
> >keywords in question, he did a by the book bump moving arch -> ~arch for |
| 7 |
> >all arches listed in keywords. |
| 8 |
> > |
| 9 |
> > |
| 10 |
> Book in question sort of presumes that ones who change keywords |
| 11 |
> *personally* tested that package in question works. You set keyword, |
| 12 |
> you sign the life of your first-born that it will work. Or at least that's |
| 13 |
> the way it should be. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
Actually, time and time again, we have heard that if the package is |
| 16 |
already marked stable on an arch, that it is safe to change that to |
| 17 |
~arch when doing version bumps. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
I know that this is the rule that I follow, and haven't had a complaint |
| 20 |
about it yet. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
-- |
| 23 |
Chris Gianelloni |
| 24 |
Release Engineering - Strategic Lead/QA Manager |
| 25 |
Games - Developer |
| 26 |
Gentoo Linux |
Archives