From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([69.77.167.62] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1L9qeV-00088c-NL for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2008 00:40:39 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id EB972E014E; Tue, 9 Dec 2008 00:40:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: from relais.videotron.ca (relais.videotron.ca [24.201.245.36]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D3E64E014E for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2008 00:40:36 +0000 (UTC) Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-version: 1.0 Received: from TesterServ.TesterNet ([70.83.102.254]) by VL-MO-MR004.ip.videotron.ca (Sun Java(tm) System Messaging Server 6.3-4.01 (built Aug 3 2007; 32bit)) with ESMTP id <0KBL00AKY37OY420@VL-MO-MR004.ip.videotron.ca> for gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org; Mon, 08 Dec 2008 19:40:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from modemcable106.102-201-24.mc.videotron.ca ([24.201.102.106] helo=[192.168.1.106]) by TesterServ.TesterNet with esmtpsa (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1L9qeS-0008Ig-7U for gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org; Mon, 08 Dec 2008 19:40:36 -0500 Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] EAPI 2 policy for portage tree From: Olivier =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Cr=EAte?= To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org In-reply-to: <20081209002909.291758a0@snowmobile> References: <493DB50A.8090403@jmhengen.net> <1228781390.7351.2.camel@TesterTop3.tester.ca> <20081209001123.16281209@snowmobile> <1228782344.7351.5.camel@TesterTop3.tester.ca> <20081209002909.291758a0@snowmobile> Content-type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-PBKWSrOWELHhJJX6tRK1" Organization: Gentoo Date: Mon, 08 Dec 2008 19:43:42 -0500 Message-id: <1228783422.7351.8.camel@TesterTop3.tester.ca> X-Mailer: Evolution 2.22.3.1 X-Archives-Salt: 117fd2fb-6012-4a8f-8830-a9d7fef66452 X-Archives-Hash: 592ffd506322fee9ac911864abc1d9b2 --=-PBKWSrOWELHhJJX6tRK1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, 2008-12-09 at 00:29 +0000, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Mon, 08 Dec 2008 19:25:44 -0500 > Olivier Cr=C3=AAte wrote: > > The testing should be two phased, the first for regression (against > > existing ebuilds), and once thats stable, then we can test with new > > ebuilds... >=20 > Uh, regression testing's handled by the package manager's extensive set > of unit tests, which can cover this with targetted accuracy with much > more reliability than making sure random ebuilds still work. We all know that portage doesn't have an extensive testing suite... And that test suites can't cover all the cases that the whole tree does... > What you're suggesting here is making everyone wait four more months > for no increase in safety. I'm not suggesting waiting any longer, just not pushing ebuilds into the tree until we have a stable enough version of portage that handles them (and if we do, then lets mark it as stable..). --=20 Olivier Cr=C3=AAte tester@gentoo.org Gentoo Developer --=-PBKWSrOWELHhJJX6tRK1 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEABECAAYFAkk9vz4ACgkQHTiOWk7ZortrNQCfeBR5UmpiXRq8qrXxzCM/H65b YegAnRTjR2LeCfzZ1QULLVu7eeH/UG9E =nfKV -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-PBKWSrOWELHhJJX6tRK1--