| 1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 2 |
Hash: SHA1 |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
Ferris McCormick wrote: |
| 5 |
> I also like alpha, but that is not what I am responding to. And I have |
| 6 |
> to admit that I haven't followed this too closely. But the "if one arch |
| 7 |
> stabalises..." assumption can be misleading. For example, xorg-x11 |
| 8 |
> maintainer arch is x86 (spyderous will correct me if I am wrong), but I |
| 9 |
> know of at least once instance in which sparc (and a few other archs) |
| 10 |
> were stable ahead of x86. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> Granted, spyderous knew what was going on and why, but for a few days |
| 13 |
> there, the "stabilises" rule of thumb with nothing more would have led |
| 14 |
> the unsuspecting reader to believe that maintainer arch for xorg was sparc. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
And this is the key, as usual: communication makes for happier devs. =) |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
But if sparc had gone ahead and stabilized without discussing it with |
| 19 |
me, I would've been very pissed. I often have plans to add more stuff |
| 20 |
before it goes stable, and when that happens, I'm left with two options, |
| 21 |
both of which suck: |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
* Yet another bump for the new stuff, requiring everybody on ~arch to |
| 24 |
recompile for things that often don't even affect them |
| 25 |
* Acting as if the ebuild were still in testing despite the other arch |
| 26 |
ignoring me and stabling it |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
Thanks, |
| 29 |
Donnie |
| 30 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 31 |
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) |
| 32 |
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
iD8DBQFCpjsLXVaO67S1rtsRAnGfAJ9TiSI3nAHnxL5WXNR44zyoXjOv7QCg7u4S |
| 35 |
vJgTrfKMuwxm9LWlu00ZKkk= |
| 36 |
=x8bR |
| 37 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 38 |
-- |
| 39 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives