| 1 |
On 7/26/13 9:13 PM, Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 07/27/2013 12:08 AM, Matt Turner wrote: |
| 3 |
>> Can we make autobuilds go to /experimental and then only move them to |
| 4 |
>> /releases when someone actually tests them? |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
Very interesting. :) I had a similar idea. I think it's great. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
>> Looking at bugzilla and listening in #gentoo-releng, it's kind of |
| 9 |
>> embarrassing how often someone downloads a Live CD only to find out |
| 10 |
>> that networking is totally broken by a udev upgrade, or something to |
| 11 |
>> that effect. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
Yes - and it's very important to make that first experience with the |
| 14 |
distro as good as possible. The bugs are usually not fixed quickly |
| 15 |
enough anyway. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
I'd like to add a suggestion - document the processes better and allow |
| 18 |
more people to contribute. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
>> We don't commit version bumps straight to stable; I don't see why we |
| 21 |
>> do with release media. |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> It's been an odd week for me agreeing with people but yeah, I completely |
| 24 |
> agree. I think we *need* to keep the autobuilds going as often as |
| 25 |
> possible to detect obvious breakage, but there is no reason they |
| 26 |
> shouldn't be marked experimental. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
+1 |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
> The real question is, how realistic can we make a process of testing and |
| 31 |
> moving to stable? |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
We have arch teams, we have users... when several users say it's OK I |
| 34 |
think it is OK. As compared to a script pushing it to the website just |
| 35 |
because it compiled. |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
Paweł |
Archives