From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gentoo-dev+bounces-64552-garchives=archives.gentoo.org@lists.gentoo.org>
Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80])
	by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 565CC138A1F
	for <garchives@archives.gentoo.org>; 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 <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; 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 <steev@gentoo.org>
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: <mailto:gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gentoo-dev+help@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+unsubscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+subscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail <gentoo-dev.gentoo.org>
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.