| 1 |
On Tue, 2003-10-07 at 20:49, Ian Leitch wrote: |
| 2 |
> OK, so say something was done and from now on all devs only submited |
| 3 |
> packages to ~arch that they deemed stable but whos ebuild could do with |
| 4 |
> some more testing. Where does that leave the beta and alpha software |
| 5 |
> that a lot of Gentoo users love so much (myself included)? Places like |
| 6 |
> BreakMyGentoo would only become bigger and more breakage would incur |
| 7 |
> from the lack of QA. |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
No breakage occurs because they use alpha/beta quality software (ok and |
| 10 |
their ebuilds are of mediocre quality in my opionon), you can't AQ |
| 11 |
(assure quality) of something in heavy development. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
Unlike some popular believe I'm not all against repositories like BMG |
| 14 |
where stuff i can't possibly put in the tree is supplied to users |
| 15 |
wanting to try some beta quality app, as long as it doesn't end in |
| 16 |
excesses where it is cool to build a whole system from cvs HEAD. And i |
| 17 |
strongly suggest against using lower libs/core apps not from the Gentoo |
| 18 |
tree as they can easily affect the stability/integrity of a complete |
| 19 |
install that results in hard to track bugs for us in some cases. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
> If we had an unstable branch, devs would be able to |
| 22 |
> keep up Gentoo's repretation of being a bleeding edge meta-distribution. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
Bleeding stable edge, I think this was more aimed at the likes of Debian |
| 25 |
where stable is stable as can be, but terribly outdated. We're still a |
| 26 |
meta-distro, nothing to do with stableness. We're trying to be a serious |
| 27 |
distro here, that is not supplying known broken stuff to the masses. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
And as far as Gentoo's current reputation goes with various upstream |
| 30 |
devs : we still have a lot to work on and i don't think supplying |
| 31 |
alpha/beta/cvs in our mainline is gonna help. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
> At the same time we could offer alpha gnome releases within our control. |
| 34 |
> Ofcourse a plan to combat the extra pointless bug reports would need to |
| 35 |
> be thought about, but I see that as a small side effect compared to the |
| 36 |
> benefits. |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
What benefits exactly ? Do we have to act according to a label that got |
| 39 |
wrongly put on Gentoo as a distro? |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
I expect much more bugreports to be generated when providing alpha/beta |
| 42 |
stuff, that would probably double the amount of bug reports (rough |
| 43 |
estimate). Those are all bugs we can do little about only move them |
| 44 |
upstream creating a huge amount of insolvable bugs for us. Our herd |
| 45 |
teams are too small to handle that, we're not like Debian where every |
| 46 |
single package has dedicated maintainers and even there unstable stuff |
| 47 |
doesn't enter stable ever. |
| 48 |
|
| 49 |
- foser |
| 50 |
|
| 51 |
|
| 52 |
-- |
| 53 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives