| 1 |
Wernfried Haas <amne@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> Coming from the user side (forums) i fully agree. Common sense among |
| 3 |
> the users always used to be: |
| 4 |
> arch: stable |
| 5 |
> ~arch: testing |
| 6 |
> p.mask: broken |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
And this is what it should be IMHO. |
| 9 |
The solutions so far seem to introduce only a new testing layer, already |
| 10 |
represented by ~arch and advertised as such: |
| 11 |
> http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/handbook/hb-portage-branches.xml |
| 12 |
> --snip-- |
| 13 |
> The Testing Branch |
| 14 |
> [...] |
| 15 |
> Beware though, you might notice stability issues, imperfect package |
| 16 |
> handling (for instance wrong/missing dependencies), too frequent |
| 17 |
> updates (resulting in lots of building) or broken packages. If you do |
| 18 |
> not know how Gentoo works and how to solve problems, we recommend that |
| 19 |
> you stick with the stable and tested branch. |
| 20 |
> --snip-- |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
> Doesn't exactly sound like packages in ~arch should be ready to enter |
| 23 |
> arch after 30 days (and or the other QA requirements). |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
The rules for a package to go to arch were introduced to me as |
| 26 |
* >30 days ~arch |
| 27 |
* no open bugs |
| 28 |
* tested by AT|Dev and deemed stable |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
And IMHO this is both flexible and quick enough. If anybody has a |
| 31 |
problem with the ebuild going stable, file a bug or bug a dev and |
| 32 |
explain that you think the ebuild needs more testing. |
| 33 |
That's about it. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
> I'd rather like to finally see proper QA applied and those who don't |
| 36 |
> beaten with a stick than making fundamental changes to existing common |
| 37 |
> sense just because it is written down somewhere _that_ way. |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
Well, i think everybody's wants "proper QA". The problem was just "how |
| 40 |
to". And of course i agree with you on that stick part ;-) |
| 41 |
|
| 42 |
Regards, |
| 43 |
Matti |
| 44 |
-- |
Archives