| 1 |
On Monday 29 December 2003 05:00, Tom Payne wrote: |
| 2 |
> I propose: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> An ebuild that is unlikely to cause problems can be MARKED stable on |
| 5 |
> relevant arches, even if the dev is unable to actually test it. |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> An ebuild is only CONSIDERED stable on an arch if it, and all its |
| 8 |
> dependencies, are marked stable on that arch. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> New problems: |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> Might result in broken software being installed. |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
As you might know we are trying to improve the quality of the tree. A policy |
| 16 |
like this one is not beneficiarry to that. Further I have the strong feeling |
| 17 |
that this is the kind of policy that will get blurry boundaries. In other |
| 18 |
words I think it will not work. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
> Feedback please. I advocate this approach for 'minor' packages, i.e. |
| 21 |
> nothing fundamental to the working of the system. It's more suitable for |
| 22 |
> scripting language libraries and minor applications (e.g. obscure window |
| 23 |
> managers). |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
A more appropriate option would be to allow users to test packages that have |
| 26 |
not been marked as broken on their arg and then have a policy that if at |
| 27 |
least two users have reported a package as stable, and an arch dev can |
| 28 |
compile it it will be marked testing, and stable if it has no problems within |
| 29 |
a reasonable time period. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
Paul |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
-- |
| 34 |
Paul de Vrieze |
| 35 |
Gentoo Developer |
| 36 |
Mail: pauldv@g.o |
| 37 |
Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net |
Archives