| 1 |
On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 10:08:42 +0100 Sven Vermeulen <swift@g.o> |
| 2 |
wrote: |
| 3 |
| Marius Mauch wrote: |
| 4 |
| > http://planet.gentoo.org/developers/hollow/2005/03/14/apache_dithering |
| 5 |
| > "... and users using testing may not complain if things break." |
| 6 |
| > |
| 7 |
| > That's the real problem. |
| 8 |
| |
| 9 |
| They *should* complain, constructively, on a bugreport, stating the |
| 10 |
| issue and how they could resolve it. If people wouldn't be allowed to |
| 11 |
| reply to ~arch bugs, then why do we have ~arch? |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
We have ~arch for things that aren't well tested but aren't believed to |
| 14 |
be broken. So, some midpoint is needed on the ~arch being broken thing. |
| 15 |
On the one hand, it's not suitable for running on production kit, so |
| 16 |
complaints about things which aren't known to be broken being added to |
| 17 |
~arch aren't particularly viable. On the other hand, constructive useful |
| 18 |
bug reports about breakages in ~arch that the maintainer doesn't know |
| 19 |
about *are* useful, since they'll let the maintainer know that the |
| 20 |
package isn't ready to go stable. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
Probably easiest to think of ~arch as meaning "candidate for arch after |
| 23 |
more testing". |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
-- |
| 26 |
Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (Vim, Fluxbox, shell tools) |
| 27 |
Mail : ciaranm at gentoo.org |
| 28 |
Web : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm |
Archives