On Tue, Feb 03, 2004 at 04:49:38PM +0200, Dan Armak wrote: > On Tuesday 03 February 2004 15:41, Kurt Lieber wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 03, 2004 at 12:04:59PM +0200 or thereabouts, Dan Armak wrote: > > > A real separate cvs branch seems like a lot of extra work; most updates > > > going into the stable branch will probably also go into the main tree. > > > What am I missing? > > > > A key part of the GLEP is ensuring that ebuilds stay in the tree for a > > minimum of one year. As has been proven time and time again, we don't have > > the necessary QA or control over our current tree to offer this feature, so > > I felt it was betetr implemented by offering a separate tree. > > I've just heard more details on irc about the ebuild deletion problem. I have > to say it gives me a very unpleasant feeling that we can't trust our devs not > to delete necessary files (in this case, any files with stable keywords, very > easy to check). And we're also accepting the fact that the main tree gets > broken in this way once in a while. That's bad, regardless of the stable tree > issue. >
Anyone can report repeat offenders to devrel. However, with 200+ devs maintaining 4000+ ebuilds, mistakes are bound to happen. -- Jon Portnoy avenj/irc.freenode.net -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
