| 1 |
On Tue, May 16, 2006 at 04:15:49PM +0100, Stephen Bennett wrote: |
| 2 |
> Comments? |
| 3 |
I have no objections to the concept - I would however like very through |
| 4 |
testing before it's actually committed. |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
Could you please submit the profile as a patch to the mailing list, |
| 7 |
thus allowing detractors to test cases that they believe it may break. |
| 8 |
- If it breaks them, then something needs to be done. |
| 9 |
- If it doesn't break them, then they have no reasonable grounds for rejecting the patch. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
I myself have a few cases I'd like to test, on fringe cases of portage |
| 12 |
behavior. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
Backwards compatibility is the most important thing with the core |
| 15 |
portions of the tree - new functionality must always be introduced in |
| 16 |
such a way that the existing majority does not experience breakage - |
| 17 |
because they'll make somebodies life hell. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
-- |
| 20 |
Robin Hugh Johnson |
| 21 |
E-Mail : robbat2@g.o |
| 22 |
GnuPG FP : 11AC BA4F 4778 E3F6 E4ED F38E B27B 944E 3488 4E85 |
Archives