Wernfried Haas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Coming from the user side (forums) i fully agree. Common sense among > the users always used to be: > arch: stable > ~arch: testing > p.mask: broken
And this is what it should be IMHO. The solutions so far seem to introduce only a new testing layer, already represented by ~arch and advertised as such: > http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/handbook/hb-portage-branches.xml > --snip-- > The Testing Branch > [...] > Beware though, you might notice stability issues, imperfect package > handling (for instance wrong/missing dependencies), too frequent > updates (resulting in lots of building) or broken packages. If you do > not know how Gentoo works and how to solve problems, we recommend that > you stick with the stable and tested branch. > --snip-- > Doesn't exactly sound like packages in ~arch should be ready to enter > arch after 30 days (and or the other QA requirements). The rules for a package to go to arch were introduced to me as * >30 days ~arch * no open bugs * tested by AT|Dev and deemed stable And IMHO this is both flexible and quick enough. If anybody has a problem with the ebuild going stable, file a bug or bug a dev and explain that you think the ebuild needs more testing. That's about it. > I'd rather like to finally see proper QA applied and those who don't > beaten with a stick than making fundamental changes to existing common > sense just because it is written down somewhere _that_ way. Well, i think everybody's wants "proper QA". The problem was just "how to". And of course i agree with you on that stick part ;-) Regards, Matti --
pgpaw5VWunuop.pgp
Description: PGP signature
