On Tue, 2005-09-06 at 12:25 -0400, Luis F. Araujo wrote: > Chris Gianelloni wrote: > > >On Sun, 2005-09-04 at 22:46 +0200, Simon Stelling wrote: > > > > > >>Stuart Herbert wrote: > >> > >> > >>>I've no personal problem with arch teams sometimes needing to do their > >>>own thing, provided it's confined to a specific class of package. > >>>Outside of the core packages required to boot & maintain a platform, > >>>when is there ever a need for arch maintainers to decide that they know > >>>better than package maintainers? > >>> > >>> > >>I assume you're talking of the case where arch team and maintainer's arch > >>are > >>the same. I think normally package maintainers can decide better whether > >>their > >>package should go stable on their arch than an arch team, as they get all > >>the > >>bugs for it. On the other hand, we can't define a "maintainer arch" in many > >>cases, so either we leave the authority to the arch team or we'll just have > >>an > >>x86 arch team without the expected effects. > >> > >> > > > >I still think that the concept of a "maintainer arch" is completely > >broken anyway. I like the idea of adding something like a "maint" > >KEYWORD, or something similar to mark that the ebuild is considered > >"stable" material by the maintainer. > > > > This keyword would be independent of any arch right?
Correct. It would be a KEYWORD or some other variable that says "I'm the maintainer, and I say it is ready to go stable" without relying on any particular architecture to be an indicator of stability. -- Chris Gianelloni Release Engineering - Strategic Lead/QA Manager Games - Developer Gentoo Linux
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
