| 1 |
Paul de Vrieze wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Sunday 09 June 2002 08:41, Marko Mikulicic wrote: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
>> Alternatively I could write a dummy client which connects to the |
| 5 |
>>bugzilla like a webbrowser and automates the submission. |
| 6 |
>> (I suppose there is not a secure straight connection to the bugzilla |
| 7 |
>>backend) |
| 8 |
>> |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> The problem is not so much the submission itself, but what happens afterwards. |
| 11 |
> New ebuilds take a lot of time to be included in the tree (if you have bad |
| 12 |
> luck) |
| 13 |
This is why I thought it was better to group them, so at least they |
| 14 |
will get in all in once. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> The new system tries to resolve that. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
What are the main reasions for this latency ? |
| 20 |
I imagine the package need to be tested somehow. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
How is this "new system" you are talking about ? |
| 23 |
How is the "old system", from a maintainer perspective ? |
| 24 |
What appens "afterwards" ? |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Wouldn't be nice if new ebuilds would committed to |
| 27 |
a middle place (purgatory) where they wait in a queue. |
| 28 |
But in the mean time audacious users could try the ebuilds |
| 29 |
(simply downloading them with ftp, or ebuild rsyinc-purgatory -> |
| 30 |
/usr/portage/purgatory) so at least they can be tested. |
| 31 |
Does it make sense ? |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
Marko |
Archives