On Wed, 09 Feb 2005 09:11:16 +0200 Yaron Tausky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Recently I encountered far too many packages for which the latest > stable ebuild was AGES old. For the vast majority of these cases the > unstable ebuilds were perfectly functioning, if not better than the > stable ones due to upstream bug fixes. Until now I used to report > these cases as bugs, but I believe it's not very efficient. Therefor, > I would like to suggest that each ebuild would include a "Testing > Period Expiration Date" -- a variable containing a date after which > the ebuild would automatically considered stable, unless the > maintainer chose otherwise. This will take a lot of work off the hands > of package maintainers -- instead of having to look after every ebuild > and mark it stable, they would only have to take care of > malfunctioning ones, yet it would still allow a proper testing period > before release. This has been shot down in the past and I don't think anything has changed since then, the tree is already broken often enough without automating it. If you're looking for more arguments check the archives, this has come up several times already. Marius -- Public Key at http://www.genone.de/info/gpg-key.pub In the beginning, there was nothing. And God said, 'Let there be Light.' And there was still nothing, but you could see a bit better.
pgpHlYuDigjEo.pgp
Description: PGP signature
