From: foser <foser@gentoo.org>
To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Ebuild bumping policy wrt KEYWORDS
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2004 15:23:18 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1093958598.26445.36.camel@rivendell> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20040826160403.26f779f4@snowdrop.home>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1470 bytes --]
On Thu, 2004-08-26 at 16:04 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 16:51:43 +0200 Carsten Lohrke <carlo@gentoo.org>
> wrote:
> | From a package maintainer perspective, I'm not fine with it. Imho an
> | arch should simply not go stable, before the package maintainer marks
> | his arch stable. I cannot care for arch maintainers - and their users
> | - if they run into problems, e.g. due to dependency changes while I do
> | not consider the ebuild stable. If the arch maintainer thinks, he
> | knows a package better than me and cannot even ask before doing so -
> | o.k., not my problem. We had the discussion a while back...
>
> Personally I prefer my original wording:
>
> > Arch teams: when moving from ~arch to arch on an actively maintained
> > package where you're going ahead of the maintainer's arch, it's best
> > to consult first. You don't necessarily have to follow the
> > maintainer's advice, but at least listen to what they have to say.
It's basically the same thing as carlo said, only covered in a nice
sauce of political correctness. It's pretty simple, without a real good
reason an arch should never go beyond the maintainers arch & never
without checking back with the maintaining herd even.
So, your 'original wording' is no policy at all, it's just trying to
give a wrong sense of QA which is completely lacking from it & is just
trying to maintain the status-quo you enjoy at this point.
- foser
[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2004-08-31 13:20 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 27+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2004-08-25 1:11 [gentoo-dev] Ebuild bumping policy wrt KEYWORDS Jason Wever
2004-08-25 3:00 ` Jason Wever
2004-08-25 15:30 ` Michael Kohl
2004-08-26 3:17 ` Jason Wever
2004-08-26 14:51 ` Carsten Lohrke
2004-08-26 15:04 ` Ciaran McCreesh
2004-08-26 15:30 ` Carsten Lohrke
2004-08-26 15:33 ` Ciaran McCreesh
2004-08-26 16:11 ` Travis Tilley
2004-08-31 13:07 ` foser
2004-09-01 2:09 ` Travis Tilley
2004-09-01 10:06 ` foser
2004-09-01 16:30 ` Robert Moss
2004-09-01 23:15 ` Carsten Lohrke
2004-09-01 23:20 ` Ciaran McCreesh
2004-09-01 23:42 ` Carsten Lohrke
2004-08-26 16:27 ` Carsten Lohrke
2004-08-31 13:23 ` foser [this message]
2004-08-25 13:51 ` Chris Gianelloni
2004-08-26 3:22 ` Jason Wever
2004-08-26 4:49 ` Donnie Berkholz
2004-08-26 5:20 ` Jason Wever
2004-08-26 6:19 ` Donnie Berkholz
2004-08-26 14:16 ` Chris Gianelloni
2004-08-26 14:44 ` Ciaran McCreesh
2004-08-26 15:02 ` Chris Gianelloni
2004-08-26 15:31 ` Jason Wever
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1093958598.26445.36.camel@rivendell \
--to=foser@gentoo.org \
--cc=gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox