| 1 |
On Sat, 06 May 2017 22:23:01 +0200 |
| 2 |
Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> > |
| 5 |
> > Well, I pulled the two terms that are tradidionally used for ~arch... |
| 6 |
> > "testing" and "unstable". Testing implied to me that a transition is taking |
| 7 |
> > place, so that went to the "mixed state". |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> I should point out that those terms are frequently used interchangeably, |
| 10 |
> and adding disjoint meanings to them is least misleading. Perhaps a name |
| 11 |
> like 'transitional' for the middle state would be better? |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
If I was to compromise, I think: |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
[ 'strict', 'transitional', 'loose', 'ignore' ] |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
Would be slightly more descriptive for arches.desc than |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
[ 'stable', 'testing', 'unstable', 'broken' ] |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
Though, granted, the description here for "Unstable" I find confusing |
| 23 |
as-is. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
<< |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
unstable |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
When a profile of an architecture is tested, then repoman treats "arch" |
| 31 |
as an error and aborts. Consistency is only tested for "~arch". |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
>> |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
I find that a bit weird, and at odds with what I thought this was being |
| 36 |
developed for, as I had the impression that "arch" was "EDONTCARE" for |
| 37 |
"unstable". |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
And so I'd expected the descriptive behaviour to be more like "testing". |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
As is, that description would currently create significant discouragement |
| 42 |
for people to test arches with that flag at all, due to the prevalence |
| 43 |
of intermixed "arch" and "~arch" in those dists. |
Archives