| 1 |
On sob, 2017-05-06 at 19:36 +0200, Andreas K. Huettel wrote: |
| 2 |
> Am Samstag, 6. Mai 2017, 18:35:08 CEST schrieb Michał Górny: |
| 3 |
> > |
| 4 |
> > 2. I can't say I like using magical keywords like 'testing' |
| 5 |
> > and 'unstable'; they're going to be confusing long-term (compare: |
| 6 |
> > the mess with stable/exp/dev for profiles). But I don't have a very good |
| 7 |
> > idea how to it better right now. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> Well, I pulled the two terms that are tradidionally used for ~arch... |
| 10 |
> "testing" and "unstable". Testing implied to me that a transition is taking |
| 11 |
> place, so that went to the "mixed state". |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
Oh, one more thing that I've forgot to mention in the original mail. |
| 15 |
It'd probably be useful to solve two disjoint problems: |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
a. whether CI should enforce correct depgraph and how, |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
b. whether we should request stabilizing packages. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
i.e. we need to be able to express differently the two possible |
| 22 |
scenarios: |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
1. stable depgraph is broken but we want to fix it (i.e. should CC |
| 25 |
the arch on stablereqs), |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
2. stable depgraph is broken and we don't care (i.e. we don't CC |
| 28 |
the arch and drop old stable versions if necessary). |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
-- |
| 31 |
Best regards, |
| 32 |
Michał Górny |
Archives