1 |
Richard Freeman wrote: |
2 |
> Olivier Crête wrote: |
3 |
>> |
4 |
>> ~arch is for testing ebuilds, not the upstream package |
5 |
>> |
6 |
> |
7 |
> I'm pretty sure this isn't the case - at least not as cleanly as you |
8 |
> suggest. Certainly testing the ebuilds themselves is part of the |
9 |
> reason for having ~arch, but upstream readiness is part of it as |
10 |
> well. If a package hit ~arch and we got 10 serious bugs that were all |
11 |
> upstream problems and then somebody filed a STABLEREQ I know that I |
12 |
> wouldn't be the one to stabilize it. |
13 |
> |
14 |
> The whole point of having QA is so that people who don't want to be |
15 |
> bothered with bleeding-edge packages aren't bothered with them. |
16 |
> Masking is for packages with known serious problems, ~arch is for |
17 |
> packages that we think are fine but don't have much production history |
18 |
> with, and stable is for packages that are known to be decent with |
19 |
> history. |
20 |
> |
21 |
> However, I'm not convinced that the 3.1 issues need to be a |
22 |
> showstopper for going stable. Others have made some of these |
23 |
> suggestions, but let me consolidate some ideas that have come up: |
24 |
> |
25 |
> 1. A tracking bug should be created to track 3.1 stabilization issues |
26 |
> (assuming it doesn't already exist). |
27 |
> 2. Portage (and other system packages) deps should be checked to |
28 |
> ensure it pulls in the current version. This should be carefully |
29 |
> coordinated. |
30 |
> 3. -dev-announce message sent out to check your python deps and fix |
31 |
> them (logging blockers as needed). This need not be carefully |
32 |
> coordinated. |
33 |
> 4. einfo message about not eselecting the new version of python. |
34 |
> News message as well. |
35 |
> |
36 |
> As long as the current version doesn't go anywhere and the current |
37 |
> version can be re-selected at-will, then I don't see how users can get |
38 |
> themselves into a corner. |
39 |
> |
40 |
> The ability to support stuff like this is the reason we have SLOTs in |
41 |
> the first place. |
42 |
> |
43 |
> |
44 |
|
45 |
Thanks for explaining that better than I could. |
46 |
|
47 |
Dale |
48 |
|
49 |
:-) :-) |