From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 32414 invoked by uid 1002); 7 Oct 2003 21:43:51 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gentoo-dev-help@gentoo.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Received: (qmail 354 invoked from network); 7 Oct 2003 21:43:51 -0000 From: foser To: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org In-Reply-To: <1065552596.4139.63.camel@Interimo.Intern.LAN> References: <1065476836.4871.22.camel@Interimo.Intern.LAN> <200310071146.04769.pauldv@gentoo.org> <1065528430.21682.79.camel@rivendell> <200310071504.08534.pauldv@gentoo.org> <1065537011.21682.93.camel@rivendell> <1065552596.4139.63.camel@Interimo.Intern.LAN> Content-Type: text/plain Message-Id: <1065562911.21682.165.camel@rivendell> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.4.5 Date: Tue, 07 Oct 2003 23:41:52 +0200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Three teir portage: stable, prestable, unstable? X-Archives-Salt: f672cb0f-46bb-4b38-ae0e-038013186d5c X-Archives-Hash: 47400830fd04fb867c8ca2fce13be244 On Tue, 2003-10-07 at 20:49, Ian Leitch wrote: > OK, so say something was done and from now on all devs only submited > packages to ~arch that they deemed stable but whos ebuild could do with > some more testing. Where does that leave the beta and alpha software > that a lot of Gentoo users love so much (myself included)? Places like > BreakMyGentoo would only become bigger and more breakage would incur > from the lack of QA. No breakage occurs because they use alpha/beta quality software (ok and their ebuilds are of mediocre quality in my opionon), you can't AQ (assure quality) of something in heavy development. Unlike some popular believe I'm not all against repositories like BMG where stuff i can't possibly put in the tree is supplied to users wanting to try some beta quality app, as long as it doesn't end in excesses where it is cool to build a whole system from cvs HEAD. And i strongly suggest against using lower libs/core apps not from the Gentoo tree as they can easily affect the stability/integrity of a complete install that results in hard to track bugs for us in some cases. > If we had an unstable branch, devs would be able to > keep up Gentoo's repretation of being a bleeding edge meta-distribution. Bleeding stable edge, I think this was more aimed at the likes of Debian where stable is stable as can be, but terribly outdated. We're still a meta-distro, nothing to do with stableness. We're trying to be a serious distro here, that is not supplying known broken stuff to the masses. And as far as Gentoo's current reputation goes with various upstream devs : we still have a lot to work on and i don't think supplying alpha/beta/cvs in our mainline is gonna help. > At the same time we could offer alpha gnome releases within our control. > Ofcourse a plan to combat the extra pointless bug reports would need to > be thought about, but I see that as a small side effect compared to the > benefits. What benefits exactly ? Do we have to act according to a label that got wrongly put on Gentoo as a distro? I expect much more bugreports to be generated when providing alpha/beta stuff, that would probably double the amount of bug reports (rough estimate). Those are all bugs we can do little about only move them upstream creating a huge amount of insolvable bugs for us. Our herd teams are too small to handle that, we're not like Debian where every single package has dedicated maintainers and even there unstable stuff doesn't enter stable ever. - foser -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list