| 1 |
Jason Huebel wrote: [Tue Jun 22 2004, 04:20:44PM EDT] |
| 2 |
> On Tuesday 22 June 2004 02:49 pm, Aron Griffis wrote: |
| 3 |
> > On the other hand, I'm not opposed completely to a specially marked |
| 4 |
> > keyword. But there are some things we need to realize: (1) each |
| 5 |
> > approach will have its pros and cons, (2) whichever approach we choose |
| 6 |
> > will likely compromise in one area to avoid compromising in another |
| 7 |
> > area... |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> And 3) there are exceptions to the rule. All I ask is that whatever decision |
| 10 |
> is made isn't a hard requirement. repoman complaining about who goes stable |
| 11 |
> first is fine, but don't make us use "-I". :-) |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
I'm a little confused about what you're saying here. I totally agree, |
| 14 |
there are exceptions. That fact has been stated numerous times in |
| 15 |
these threads, and I don't think anybody disagrees. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
Regarding avoiding a hard requirement, there would certainly be no |
| 18 |
need to "cvs commit" to get around the checking done by repoman. |
| 19 |
Personally I wouldn't be opposed to an option similar to -I to prevent |
| 20 |
developers from accidentally submitting such changes. Both -I and the |
| 21 |
new flag are for overriding repoman's QA checks. IMHO that is |
| 22 |
something that should be done seldom enough that it's not asking a lot |
| 23 |
from developers. Do you really think it would be that painful? :-( |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
Regards, |
| 26 |
Aron |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
-- |
| 29 |
Aron Griffis |
| 30 |
Gentoo Linux Developer |
Archives