| 1 |
Alin Nastac wrote: [Wed Mar 09 2005, 05:57:15PM EST] |
| 2 |
> No gentooer |
| 3 |
> expects from a ~arch ebuild to be stable, so the sky would not fall if |
| 4 |
> you made a mistake and release it under this keyword. When I hear "I |
| 5 |
> cannot mark foo library as ~arch because I don't know how to test it" |
| 6 |
> smells like excuse to me. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
Earlier you said that you mark ebuilds stable after 30 days with no |
| 9 |
bugs. Now you're suggesting that marking ~arch by mistake isn't a big |
| 10 |
deal. I don't wish to beat up on you further, but this viewpoint can |
| 11 |
lead to stable ebuilds in the tree that don't even build over the |
| 12 |
course of one month (other than February ;-) |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
> As for QA... does anyone think we *can* have proper QA procedures, |
| 15 |
> with our release speed and decentralized development model? And with |
| 16 |
> only ... 350 devs from which God knows how many are still active? |
| 17 |
> :-D Who thinks that clearly doesn't have a clue what QA means. It is |
| 18 |
> practically impossible to test every combination of |
| 19 |
> ebuilds/USE/CFLAGS so all we do is a surface test, letting the |
| 20 |
> burden of testing on the shoulders of our users. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
You're right, we don't have real QA yet. But it's still better to try |
| 23 |
the best we can rather than marking things blindly on the basis that |
| 24 |
"we don't have QA anyway" |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Regards, |
| 27 |
Aron |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
-- |
| 30 |
Aron Griffis |
| 31 |
Gentoo Linux Developer |
Archives