| 1 |
On Monday 02 February 2004 21:03, Paul de Vrieze wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Monday 02 February 2004 16:17, Kurt Lieber wrote: |
| 3 |
> > All -- |
| 4 |
> > |
| 5 |
> > I've posted GLEP 19 which talks about the inclusion of a new 'stable' |
| 6 |
> > tree in portage that is updated on a periodic basis and only contains |
| 7 |
> > security and major bugfixes out of cycle. |
| 8 |
> > |
| 9 |
> > http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/glep/glep-0019.html |
| 10 |
> > |
| 11 |
> > Please take a moment to review the GLEP and offer any feedback or ask any |
| 12 |
> > questions. |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> Could you explain why you think that architecture specific stable keywords |
| 15 |
> are necessary? Would that not create a too big strain on the arch |
| 16 |
> developers. If a package is stable on an arch shouldn't it also be |
| 17 |
> automatically a candidate for the stable tree? |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
Hi Paul, though I'm not the 'you', I will give my statement here. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Long time ago I thougth about having an unstable/stable and mature kind of |
| 22 |
flag here. The point is, that sometimes changes from ~arch to arch occur and |
| 23 |
a short time later a return to ~arch is needed because the responsible dev |
| 24 |
overlooked a point which became clear by the community. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
A jump from for example 'x86' to 'stable:x86' (which could also be denoted |
| 27 |
as !x68) should only occur if it 'seems' to be testet from the community for |
| 28 |
at least some days! |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
I hope you did get my point, if not, get back to me :-) |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
take care, have fun |
| 33 |
/christian |
| 34 |
EDDK |
Archives