Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Denis Dupeyron <calchan@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev <gentoo-dev@l.g.o>
Cc: wg-stable@g.o, arch-leads@g.o, Gentoo alpha AT <alpha@g.o>, Gentoo AMD64 AT <amd64@g.o>, amd64-fbsd@g.o, Gentoo arm AT <arm@g.o>, arm64@g.o, Gentoo hppa AT <hppa@g.o>, Gentoo ia64 AT <ia64@g.o>, Gentoo m68k AT <m68k@g.o>, Gentoo mips AT <mips@g.o>, Gentoo ppc AT <ppc@g.o>, Gentoo ppc64 AT <ppc64@g.o>, Gentoo s390 AT <s390@g.o>, Gentoo sh AT <sh@g.o>, Gentoo sparc AT <sparc@g.o>, Gentoo x86 AT <x86@g.o>, x86-fbsd@g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Future of gentoo's stable and unstable trees: what are your thoughts?
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2017 00:04:13
Message-Id: CA+CSuAJ=3bgJRWSiWQHcamrht=SKum676KTjXC0kgbGodHX4Uw@mail.gmail.com
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Future of gentoo's stable and unstable trees: what are your thoughts? by Rich Freeman
1 On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 6:41 PM, Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o> wrote:
2 >
3 > When in the last 16 years was this 2 year period of running stable?
4 > The general state of QA has varied quite a bit over that time.
5 >
6
7 I would say 3 or 4 years ago, roughly.
8
9
10 > running unstable systemd has been
11
12
13 Running unstable doesn't mean being stupid.
14
15
16 > If unstable never breaks chances are we aren't actually using it for its
17 > intended purpose, not that we
18 > should be deliberately breaking things.
19
20
21 There's this idea that unstable should break. But the initial idea was that
22 unstable is what should be sent straight to stable, barring the occasional
23 mistake. Unstable was never meant for ebuilds in development and very much
24 in flux because of that. That's what package masks are for.

Replies