Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: rfc: revisiting our stabilization policy

[Steev Klimaszewski <steev@gentoo.org>]

On Thu, 2014-01-23 at 20:13 +0100, Tom Wijsman wrote:
> > I don't think that's what was being proposed, though. The question was
> > really the old complaint about slow architectures; the "-* arch"
> > solution sounds like the most reasonable definition of "dropping"
> > keywords, in the absence of AT communication otherwise.
> 
> Dropping keywords and specifying -* are a world apart of each other.
> 
> The former means that it is not ready for wide stable or testing users,
> the latter means that it has been tested to not work at all;
> furthermore, we need to explicitly specify which arches in that case.
> 
The complaint is slow to stable arches - by specifying "-* arch" it
would signify that ONLY that arch uses that version of the ebuild - and
it would be up to the arch team to remove it once they've stabled the
new version - and considering the complaint is only about slow arches,
there's nothing additional to specify in there - it's REMOVING arches
that have stabled a newer version already, so they are unaffected.  

On the other hand, you're suggesting that we don't actually bother with
stabling things - or actually testing that things are properly stable,
allowing anyone to decide when something is stable, whether they have
access to the hardware to actually test that it works.  You and a few
others keep talking in the theoretical while I've shown an actual
problem but you and the others conveniently ignore ACTUAL problems in
favor of your possible problems.  Please stop.