Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Tom Wijsman <TomWij@g.o>
To: steev@g.o
Cc: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: rfc: revisiting our stabilization policy
Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2014 22:39:23
Message-Id: 20140123233806.4709abd5@TOMWIJ-GENTOO
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: rfc: revisiting our stabilization policy by Steev Klimaszewski
1 On Thu, 23 Jan 2014 14:55:34 -0600
2 Steev Klimaszewski <steev@g.o> wrote:
4 > On Thu, 2014-01-23 at 20:13 +0100, Tom Wijsman wrote:
5 > The complaint is slow to stable arches
7 Yes.
9 > by specifying "-* arch" it would signify that ONLY that arch uses
10 > that version of the ebuild - and it would be up to the arch team to
11 > remove it once they've stabled the new version - and considering the
12 > complaint is only about slow arches, there's nothing additional to
13 > specify in there - it's REMOVING arches that have stabled a newer
14 > version already, so they are unaffected.
16 As this is a suggestion that is made by someone else, whom I have
17 already replied to stating this is a world apart from the discussion
18 in this thread; I am skipping this entire paragraph, I think you meant
19 to send the reply to the other person with his/her post as In-Reply-To.
21 > On the other hand, you're suggesting that we don't actually bother
22 > with stabling things or actually testing that things are properly
23 > stable, allowing anyone to decide when something is stable, whether
24 > they have access to the hardware to actually test that it works.
26 This is missing reference, and thus I doubt if that is my suggestion.
27 Looking back at the entire context of this thread, I have made several
28 "ideas" as various options; which was done as to feed the discussion to
29 consider several viewpoints.
31 > You and a few others keep talking in the theoretical
33 This thread is based on an actual problem.
35 > while I've shown an actual problem but you and the others
36 > conveniently ignore ACTUAL problems in favor of your possible
37 > problems. Please stop.
39 Well, as seen on #gentoo-dev you shoot down solutions. Please consider.
41 --
42 With kind regards,
44 Tom Wijsman (TomWij)
45 Gentoo Developer
47 E-mail address : TomWij@g.o
48 GPG Public Key : 6D34E57D
49 GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2 ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D


File name MIME type
signature.asc application/pgp-signature


Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: rfc: revisiting our stabilization policy Peter Stuge <peter@×××××.se>