1 |
What's wrong with the alpha beta being part of ~arch? If |
2 |
someone is working with alpha/beta stuff they know what |
3 |
they're looking for? I really don't see a need to have a |
4 |
multi-tier mess to keep track of alpha/beta/gamma stuff. |
5 |
If it's arch it is stable and works. If it's ~arch it |
6 |
may be broken and break your system. When the developer |
7 |
deems it's okay it moves to arch. |
8 |
|
9 |
|
10 |
On Tue, 07 Oct 2003 19:49:56 +0100 |
11 |
Ian Leitch <port001@g.o> wrote: |
12 |
>On Tue, 2003-10-07 at 15:30, foser wrote: |
13 |
>> I think the the problem is uninformedness about the |
14 |
>>policy, does it even |
15 |
>> get properly read by new devs ? They assume they can do |
16 |
>>it because they |
17 |
>> see another dev do it and so it spreads, you don't solve |
18 |
>>these problems |
19 |
>> by accommodating them. |
20 |
> |
21 |
>OK, so say something was done and from now on all devs |
22 |
>only submited |
23 |
>packages to ~arch that they deemed stable but whos ebuild |
24 |
>could do with |
25 |
>some more testing. Where does that leave the beta and |
26 |
>alpha software |
27 |
>that a lot of Gentoo users love so much (myself |
28 |
>included)? Places like |
29 |
>BreakMyGentoo would only become bigger and more breakage |
30 |
>would incur |
31 |
>from the lack of QA. If we had an unstable branch, devs |
32 |
>would be able to |
33 |
>keep up Gentoo's repretation of being a bleeding edge |
34 |
>meta-distribution. |
35 |
>At the same time we could offer alpha gnome releases |
36 |
>within our control. |
37 |
>Ofcourse a plan to combat the extra pointless bug reports |
38 |
>would need to |
39 |
>be thought about, but I see that as a small side effect |
40 |
>compared to the |
41 |
>benefits. |
42 |
> |
43 |
>Regards, |
44 |
>Ian. |
45 |
> |
46 |
> |
47 |
>-- |
48 |
>gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
49 |
> |
50 |
|
51 |
|
52 |
-- |
53 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |