| 1 |
On 2006.07.27 10:00, Chris Bainbridge wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 27/07/06, Stefan Schweizer <genstef@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
>> |
| 4 |
[snip] |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
>> As a better system I would like to see packages stable automatically |
| 7 |
>> after 30 days and no bugs. But this is probably not going to happen |
| 8 |
>> with gentoo so I just stay away from stable and put ACCEPT_KEYWORDS |
| 9 |
>> in my make.conf |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
[snip] |
| 12 |
> The testing is supposed to be for the ebuild, not the package itself, |
| 13 |
> so there's not much point in holding back packages with simple |
| 14 |
> ebuilds from being stabilised. And the testing process isn't that |
| 15 |
> extensive anyway - all it ensures is that the package builds and can |
| 16 |
> be run on one particular arch testers system. No disrespect to the |
| 17 |
> testers, but they can't be experts in every particular piece of |
| 18 |
> software. How much code coverage does a typical ebuild really get |
| 19 |
> when being tested? |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> I'd say no bugs, 30 days, passes internal tests, being run by users |
| 22 |
> => stablise, for the majority of packages (obviously, there may be |
| 23 |
> some exceptions...). |
| 24 |
>-- |
| 25 |
> gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
| 26 |
> |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
Maybe this semi-automatic stabilisation by default could be adopted by |
| 29 |
the tree cleaners project? |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
Maybe I'll get flamed for even thinking that. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
Regards, |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
Roy Bamford |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
-- |
| 38 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives