On Monday 29 December 2003 05:00, Tom Payne wrote: > I propose: > > An ebuild that is unlikely to cause problems can be MARKED stable on > relevant arches, even if the dev is unable to actually test it. > > An ebuild is only CONSIDERED stable on an arch if it, and all its > dependencies, are marked stable on that arch. > > New problems: > > Might result in broken software being installed. >
As you might know we are trying to improve the quality of the tree. A policy like this one is not beneficiarry to that. Further I have the strong feeling that this is the kind of policy that will get blurry boundaries. In other words I think it will not work. > Feedback please. I advocate this approach for 'minor' packages, i.e. > nothing fundamental to the working of the system. It's more suitable for > scripting language libraries and minor applications (e.g. obscure window > managers). A more appropriate option would be to allow users to test packages that have not been marked as broken on their arg and then have a policy that if at least two users have reported a package as stable, and an arch dev can compile it it will be marked testing, and stable if it has no problems within a reasonable time period. Paul -- Paul de Vrieze Gentoo Developer Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net
pgp00000.pgp
Description: signature
