| 1 |
On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 15:01:13 +0200 Wernfried Haas <amne@g.o> |
| 2 |
wrote: |
| 3 |
| On Sun, Sep 18, 2005 at 01:32:32PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 4 |
| > Uhm. That's current policy and has been current policy for several |
| 5 |
| > years. No GLEP needed. |
| 6 |
| |
| 7 |
| If that's currenty policy, why does the handbook say something quite |
| 8 |
| different then? Does it need to be fixed? |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
The deal with the handbook wording is... Originally, it was phrased |
| 11 |
very much in favour of ~arch, and suggesting that arch was the |
| 12 |
equivalent of Debian Stable. Many users who didn't know what they were |
| 13 |
doing would use ~arch and then complain when they encountered the |
| 14 |
occasional breakage. Certain developers complained, and the wording was |
| 15 |
changed. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
Here's the important part. What we tell the end user is not the same as |
| 18 |
what we tell the developer. Users should not use ~arch unless they're |
| 19 |
prepared to accept breakages. Developers should not put things into |
| 20 |
~arch if they think there's a significant chance of it breaking things. |
| 21 |
That way, breakages will still sometimes occur in ~arch, and when they |
| 22 |
do users don't get to complain too much. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
-- |
| 25 |
Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (Vim, Shell tools, Fluxbox, Cron) |
| 26 |
Mail : ciaranm at gentoo.org |
| 27 |
Web : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm |
Archives