From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 565CC138A1F for ; Thu, 23 Jan 2014 20:58:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id A522AE0AEF; Thu, 23 Jan 2014 20:58:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C3BB8E0AE9 for ; Thu, 23 Jan 2014 20:57:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.11.20] (cpe-72-177-217-176.satx.res.rr.com [72.177.217.176]) (using SSLv3 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: steev) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8503A33F3C9; Thu, 23 Jan 2014 20:57:58 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <1390510534.14914.22.camel@oswin.hackershack.net> Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: rfc: revisiting our stabilization policy From: Steev Klimaszewski To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Cc: slong@rathaus.eclipse.co.uk Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2014 14:55:34 -0600 In-Reply-To: <20140123201333.71e52bfc@TOMWIJ-GENTOO> References: <52D5E03C.3010900@gentoo.org> <20140115022337.4336618d@TOMWIJ-GENTOO> <52D5E60A.80600@gentoo.org> <20140115020934.GA3886@laptop.home> <52D5F0BF.3060305@gentoo.org> <20140115024604.GA3952@laptop.home> <20140115232804.1c26beda@kruskal.home.chead.ca> <20140116234442.27c361d1@TOMWIJ-GENTOO> <20140119143157.72fc0e91@kruskal.home.chead.ca> <20140120014713.2cafc257@TOMWIJ-GENTOO> <20140123181242.GA17827@rathaus.eclipse.co.uk> <20140123201333.71e52bfc@TOMWIJ-GENTOO> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.8.5 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 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: c6adc2ad-cbfc-44f9-9629-2b70c2c681ec X-Archives-Hash: ad6f23f5b26d9fb6bec053eb9414671c 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.