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. |
Subject | Author |
---|---|
Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Future of gentoo's stable and unstable trees: what are your thoughts? | William Hubbs <williamh@g.o> |