On 21/08/2013 18:30, Tom Wijsman wrote:
On Wed, 21 Aug 2013 17:04:45 +1000
Michael Palimaka <kensing...@gentoo.org> wrote:
We would probably benefit from formalising a clearer definition of
arch/~arch - it seems to mean a lot of different things to different
people.
http://devmanual.gentoo.org/keywording lists a definition; so, now I
wonder what it could be misinterpreted as. It states ~ is "believed" to
work, doesn't contain "serious" bugs but "more testing" is "required"...
To me, this means something like: after carefully writing or updating
the ebuild, and testing of the ebuild and application, there were no
serious bugs. That is, I have in general found it to be as good as, or
an improvement ("no serious bugs") on the previous version and it's
suitable for wider consumption. Putting in the tree as ~arch will allow
wider testing with configuration and usage that I didn't think of.
To some people it means something like this: if it doesn't immediately
rm -rf / for most users (if you have a "funny" configuration and this
happens, too bad don't use ~arch), it's fine.
I'm sure others have many different ideas, too.
