On Monday 29 December 2003 05:00, Tom Payne wrote:
> I propose:
>
> An ebuild that is unlikely to cause problems can be MARKED stable on
> relevant arches, even if the dev is unable to actually test it.
>
> An ebuild is only CONSIDERED stable on an arch if it, and all its
> dependencies, are marked stable on that arch.
>
> New problems:
>
> Might result in broken software being installed.
>

As you might know we are trying to improve the quality of the tree. A policy 
like this one is not beneficiarry to that. Further I have the strong feeling 
that this is the kind of policy that will get blurry boundaries. In other 
words I think it will not work.

> Feedback please. I advocate this approach for 'minor' packages, i.e.
> nothing fundamental to the working of the system. It's more suitable for
> scripting language libraries and minor applications (e.g. obscure window
> managers).

A more appropriate option would be to allow users to test packages that have 
not been marked as broken on their arg and then have a policy that if at 
least two users have reported a package as stable, and an arch dev can 
compile it it will be marked testing, and stable if it has no problems within 
a reasonable time period.

Paul

-- 
Paul de Vrieze
Gentoo Developer
Mail: pauldv@gentoo.org
Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net