| 1 |
George Shapovalov wrote: |
| 2 |
> The good thing about this approach is that it only requires an initial |
| 3 |
> investment of organizing and automating things but does not add any regular |
| 4 |
> work to the devs. In fact, if the "tested" category becomes popular enough, |
| 5 |
> it can cut the work for stable testers, may be even by something like a |
| 6 |
> factor of 10 eventually (due to less requests for explicit stabilizaion being |
| 7 |
> issued).. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
We might also aim to make it easy for users to mix-and-match levels of |
| 11 |
stability by package. I know it is possible already, but perhaps it |
| 12 |
could be improved, or pre-canned lists of packages that users might |
| 13 |
typically want bleeding-edge vs stable could be compiled. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
I think there are a large number of users who wouldn't mind less |
| 16 |
stability on packages that won't prevent booting or network-access or |
| 17 |
general use of their system. If some nice-to-have utility breaks I |
| 18 |
don't mind reverting it, but if baselayout goes haywire I could spend |
| 19 |
hours just getting my system to boot. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
I like your idea though. |
| 22 |
-- |
| 23 |
gentoo-dev@l.g.o mailing list |
Archives