| 1 |
On Sat, 19 Jun 2004 13:05:34 -0500 |
| 2 |
Jon Hood <squinky86@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> net-p2p/mldonkey- I refuse to mark >2.5.16 stable because of numerous |
| 5 |
> bug reports and stability problems with the newer versions (though the |
| 6 |
> latest version in portage does seem a bit more stable). Completely |
| 7 |
> ignoring this, those versions are on the "stable on hppa". It's not a |
| 8 |
> majorly critical package, but it is an example of the QA done by the |
| 9 |
> maintainer, and the arch maintainer going beyond it. I don't mind much, |
| 10 |
> because I have yet to get a bug report from an hppa user, but I would |
| 11 |
> have prefered to keep it all testing until for at least another month. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
I've been running it 1 week with ~5Gb of dl on two box before marking it |
| 15 |
stable and it still never crashed but I had some minor problems with the |
| 16 |
current x86 stable one. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
So, I did *extensive* QA on this packages as I do for every other package. |
| 19 |
When I say extensive, that means I do everything wich I have the time and |
| 20 |
the ressources for. I don't have thousands of users behind me to test stuff. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
Also, I marked this directly stable because I don't have time and manpower |
| 23 |
to first mark it ~hppa and then hppa. For thoses non-critical packages, |
| 24 |
that's the way I proceed. Give me 10 more devs, 50000 users some fast box |
| 25 |
and I'll apply to policy regarding the testing stuff for all packages. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
-- |
| 29 |
Guy Martin |
| 30 |
Gentoo Linux - HPPA port Lead / IPv6 team |
| 31 |
Lug Charleroi (Belgium) |
Archives