| 1 |
On Monday 30 July 2001 23:26, you wrote: |
| 2 |
> Dan Armak <danarmak@g.o> writes: |
| 3 |
> > I wouldn't mind handling the mailing-list side of the story - grabbing |
| 4 |
> > all ebuilds and putting them wherever and informing whoever. But many |
| 5 |
> > ebuilds come through for packages I don't use and in many cases can't |
| 6 |
> > test. I don't think any one developer could or should handle the |
| 7 |
> > testing, that's why we have teams. We can have an "incoming" ebuild |
| 8 |
> > tree (in cvs or elsewhere) and developers could grab ebuilds that fall |
| 9 |
> > under their area of interest, test them and put them either in the |
| 10 |
> > stable or unstable cvs trees. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> I also think this is the way of doing it. Perhaps, when you find an |
| 13 |
> ebuild in the mailinglist you can commit it to some place in cvs and |
| 14 |
> add a wiki todo about it giving it to the correct team. This way it |
| 15 |
> will be easy to track what "your" team has to test. |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
So, we come again to the requirement of introducing stable/unstable/user etc. |
| 18 |
development trees into cvs. |
| 19 |
-- |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Dan Armak |
| 22 |
Gentoo Linux Developer, Desktop Team |
| 23 |
Matan, Israel |
Archives