* [gentoo-proxy-maint] Has there been any conversation about ~usercontrib keyword?
@ 2019-06-13 11:27 Philippe Chaintreuil
2019-06-13 16:27 ` Haelwenn (lanodan) Monnier
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Philippe Chaintreuil @ 2019-06-13 11:27 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-proxy-maint
I know GURU is out there for new packages, but has there been any
conversation about adding a ~usercontrib keyword to portage that would
get version bumps in sooner for existing packages? Especially if such
ebuilds were regulated to a separate overlay with a mechanism similar to
the proposed GURU mechanism?
--
Philippe Chaintreuil
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-proxy-maint] Has there been any conversation about ~usercontrib keyword?
2019-06-13 11:27 [gentoo-proxy-maint] Has there been any conversation about ~usercontrib keyword? Philippe Chaintreuil
@ 2019-06-13 16:27 ` Haelwenn (lanodan) Monnier
2019-06-13 19:11 ` Philippe Chaintreuil
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Haelwenn (lanodan) Monnier @ 2019-06-13 16:27 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-proxy-maint
[2019-06-13 07:27:46-0400] Philippe Chaintreuil:
> I know GURU is out there for new packages, but has there been any
> conversation about adding a ~usercontrib keyword to portage that would
> get version bumps in sooner for existing packages? Especially if such
> ebuilds were regulated to a separate overlay with a mechanism similar to
> the proposed GURU mechanism?
This makes little sense to do when GURU exists… and the keyword should
IMHO be into metadata.xml.
And so, you get the same as proxy-maint@, right?
If this is about the lack of workforce for merging proxy-maint PRs
then maybe it should by moving stuff to GURU as it's not on the same
QA level and model? Specially as I don't think we should lower the QA
level of the gentoo tree.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-proxy-maint] Has there been any conversation about ~usercontrib keyword?
2019-06-13 16:27 ` Haelwenn (lanodan) Monnier
@ 2019-06-13 19:11 ` Philippe Chaintreuil
0 siblings, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Philippe Chaintreuil @ 2019-06-13 19:11 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-proxy-maint
On 6/13/2019 12:27 PM, Haelwenn (lanodan) Monnier wrote:
> This makes little sense to do when GURU exists… and the keyword should
> IMHO be into metadata.xml.
> And so, you get the same as proxy-maint@, right?
>
> If this is about the lack of workforce for merging proxy-maint PRs
> then maybe it should by moving stuff to GURU as it's not on the same
> QA level and model? Specially as I don't think we should lower the QA
> level of the gentoo tree.
My understanding is that GURU only exists for packages that don't exist
in the primary tree. So it addresses the new-package backlog, but not
the version bump backlog for packages that exist in the primary tree.
A separate tree for version bumps probably creates it's own issues
though, since revisions would probably start conflicting. (Gentoo: -r3;
User Improves: -r4; Gentoo doesn't accept -r4, but needs to issue an
unrelated -r4 => conflict.)
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2019-06-13 19:11 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2019-06-13 11:27 [gentoo-proxy-maint] Has there been any conversation about ~usercontrib keyword? Philippe Chaintreuil
2019-06-13 16:27 ` Haelwenn (lanodan) Monnier
2019-06-13 19:11 ` Philippe Chaintreuil
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox