| 1 |
>>How about a crazier idea: |
| 2 |
>> |
| 3 |
>>Each package has a stability rating from 0-99 per |
| 4 |
>>architecture. |
| 5 |
>>0 means totally untested/unstable and 99 means rock |
| 6 |
>>solid/no bugs. (0-33~unstable, 34-66~testing, |
| 7 |
>>67-99~stable) |
| 8 |
>>Each new package starts at 50. Whenever a user uses |
| 9 |
>>the package, he can then vote on it by giving +1 or -1 |
| 10 |
>>(on the website or through portage). |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> Indeed, a crazy idea. Technical issues like stability, which technology to |
| 13 |
> use, how to implement a certain functionality, whether a bug is fixed,... can |
| 14 |
> not be subject to voting. Period. Someone actually has to look into the |
| 15 |
> matter and decide on technical merits. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
Anyway, the idea of a finer granularity for stability branches shouldn't |
| 18 |
be throwed away. The score could be given by developers, following some |
| 19 |
rules (bugs filed vs. time, etc.) |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Without using a 0-99 range (it seems too much granular imho), a 0-10 |
| 22 |
range could be nice (0-not working / 10-production level rock solid). |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
Is there already some example of such usage? |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
m. |
| 27 |
-- |
| 28 |
gentoo-user@g.o mailing list |
Archives