1 |
On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 4:39 AM, Patrick Lauer <patrick@g.o> wrote: |
2 |
> |
3 |
> On 11/18/2015 01:01 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: |
4 |
>> On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 6:12 AM, Alexander Berntsen <bernalex@g.o> wrote: |
5 |
>>> When I do QA in projects I'm involved with (at least outside of |
6 |
>>> Gentoo), we don't do it live on end-user systems. I'll leave the |
7 |
>>> details as an exercise for the Gentoo developer. |
8 |
>>> |
9 |
>> People who run ~arch are not really end-users - they're contributors |
10 |
>> who have volunteered to test packages. |
11 |
> Or people that use Gentoo because it allows them to satisfy requirements. |
12 |
> |
13 |
|
14 |
So, again portage is a bit unusual in that it doesn't have an upstream |
15 |
outside of Gentoo. |
16 |
|
17 |
I think that a QA layer for Portage is a great idea, but it simply |
18 |
isn't going to happen unless somebody actually steps up to create one. |
19 |
The fact that more portage QA would be useful doesn't mean that the |
20 |
few volunteers working on portage should be banned from introducing |
21 |
new versions into ~arch until they create and staff a new QA effort. |
22 |
They're of course welcome to work on that if that is what they want to |
23 |
do, but I don't think anybody is going to try to dictate to them what |
24 |
they work on. |
25 |
|
26 |
If somebody really would benefit from more portage QA, I'd suggest |
27 |
either pitching in to do the work, or finding some way to entice |
28 |
others to do so. |
29 |
|
30 |
-- |
31 |
Rich |