From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: <gentoo-dev-return-15442-arch-gentoo-dev=gentoo.org@lists.gentoo.org> Received: (qmail 28776 invoked from network); 1 Sep 2004 23:24:01 +0000 Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (156.56.111.197) by lists.gentoo.org with AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 1 Sep 2004 23:24:01 +0000 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([156.56.111.196] helo=parrot.gentoo.org) by smtp.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1C2eSO-0002Sf-Nc for arch-gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org; Wed, 01 Sep 2004 23:24:00 +0000 Received: (qmail 21342 invoked by uid 89); 1 Sep 2004 23:24:00 +0000 Mailing-List: contact gentoo-dev-help@gentoo.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: <mailto:gentoo-dev@gentoo.org> List-Help: <mailto:gentoo-dev-help@gentoo.org> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev-unsubscribe@gentoo.org> List-Subscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev-subscribe@gentoo.org> List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail <gentoo-dev.gentoo.org> X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Received: (qmail 22559 invoked from network); 1 Sep 2004 23:24:00 +0000 Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2004 00:20:56 +0100 From: Ciaran McCreesh <ciaranm@gentoo.org> To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Message-ID: <20040902002056.0e2b117c@snowdrop.home> In-Reply-To: <200409020115.47963.carlo@gentoo.org> References: <Pine.LNX.4.61.0408241907500.31215@stargazer.weeve.org> <1094033220.9970.17.camel@rivendell> <4135F915.4060400@gentoo.org> <200409020115.47963.carlo@gentoo.org> X-Mailer: Sylpheed-Claws 0.9.12a (GTK+ 1.2.10; i686-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha1"; boundary="Signature=_Thu__2_Sep_2004_00_20_56_+0100_IXDwiA2wxZ62lBO+" Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Ebuild bumping policy wrt KEYWORDS X-Archives-Salt: 59388d10-d408-47fb-a6f0-1a24cafe4b63 X-Archives-Hash: 2c10ce46544f2d18ae7919439823a13f --Signature=_Thu__2_Sep_2004_00_20_56_+0100_IXDwiA2wxZ62lBO+ Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Thu, 2 Sep 2004 01:15:47 +0200 Carsten Lohrke <carlo@gentoo.org> wrote: | On Wednesday 01 September 2004 18:30, Robert Moss wrote: | > Everything is broken to some extent. | | The point is, that you can hardly measure, if a new version is less | broken than an older one, if you do not actively maintain a package. | You can't know which patches a package maintainer wants to apply, | before marking an ebuild stable. Exchanging a broken version with a | slightly less broken is acceptable for unstable stuff, not for stable | ebuilds. You may not agree, but then you have no sense for quality. Which is better? Having 'emerge gnome' fail entirely, or having 'emerge gnome' provide a working gnome which might have a small number of minor unfixed bugs? -- Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (Sparc, MIPS, Vim, Fluxbox) Mail : ciaranm at gentoo.org Web : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm --Signature=_Thu__2_Sep_2004_00_20_56_+0100_IXDwiA2wxZ62lBO+ Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFBNlla96zL6DUtXhERAuR0AJ95u3+hvRFFDhtnIYgWV8eiN6EL4ACg37IE 9gclK8F6AhvgoGHIiS79nEM= =KPQV -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Signature=_Thu__2_Sep_2004_00_20_56_+0100_IXDwiA2wxZ62lBO+--