Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Steev Klimaszewski <steev@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Cc: slong@××××××××××××××××××.uk
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: rfc: revisiting our stabilization policy
Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2014 20:58:11
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: rfc: revisiting our stabilization policy by Tom Wijsman
1 On Thu, 2014-01-23 at 20:13 +0100, Tom Wijsman wrote:
2 > > I don't think that's what was being proposed, though. The question was
3 > > really the old complaint about slow architectures; the "-* arch"
4 > > solution sounds like the most reasonable definition of "dropping"
5 > > keywords, in the absence of AT communication otherwise.
6 >
7 > Dropping keywords and specifying -* are a world apart of each other.
8 >
9 > The former means that it is not ready for wide stable or testing users,
10 > the latter means that it has been tested to not work at all;
11 > furthermore, we need to explicitly specify which arches in that case.
12 >
13 The complaint is slow to stable arches - by specifying "-* arch" it
14 would signify that ONLY that arch uses that version of the ebuild - and
15 it would be up to the arch team to remove it once they've stabled the
16 new version - and considering the complaint is only about slow arches,
17 there's nothing additional to specify in there - it's REMOVING arches
18 that have stabled a newer version already, so they are unaffected.
20 On the other hand, you're suggesting that we don't actually bother with
21 stabling things - or actually testing that things are properly stable,
22 allowing anyone to decide when something is stable, whether they have
23 access to the hardware to actually test that it works. You and a few
24 others keep talking in the theoretical while I've shown an actual
25 problem but you and the others conveniently ignore ACTUAL problems in
26 favor of your possible problems. Please stop.


Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: rfc: revisiting our stabilization policy Tom Wijsman <TomWij@g.o>