Re: [gentoo-dev] first council meeting

[Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org>]

On Friday 16 September 2005 05:57 pm, Martin Schlemmer wrote:
> On Fri, 2005-09-16 at 16:59 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Friday 16 September 2005 04:44 pm, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > > On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 16:33:13 -0400 Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org>
> > >
> > > wrote:
> > > | ok, e17 packages dont count here.  however, your hardcore view i
> > > | still dont buy.  how about the baselayout-1.9.x -> baselayout-1.11.x
> > > | stabilization process ?  are you telling me that arch teams should
> > > | have had the power to move those into stable without talking to the
> > > | maintainer ?  baselayout may be a core package, but if you continue
> > > | with your hard rule here, then it doesnt matter.
> > >
> > > I'm saying that arch teams should be allowed to mark it stable if they
> > > think it's appropriate. Not that it must be moved to stable after $x
> > > days, but that it can be at the arch team's discretion. And any arch
> > > team which is silly enough to mark a broken baselayout stable has far
> > > bigger problems anyway...
> >
> > baselayout is an example, any package can be used here (although not many
> > are as critical)
> >
> > i'm saying that the maintainer may have a certain idea of when the
> > package is ready for stable (a target feature set, working out certain
> > quirks, etc...). your current hard view does not allow for that.  for
> > example, i had an arch maintainer one time mark bash-3 stable before
> > base-system was ready for it (readline, baselayout, etc... were going to
> > be stabilized together).  i smacked them hard for it, but if we went with
> > this hard view, it would have been perfectly acceptable behavior.
>
> We still have KEYWORDS="-*".  Sure, I know many do not like it, and if
> something was decided in regards to it, I missed it, but it is generally
> seen as 'less severe' than a package.mask'd mask, and its local to the
> package, so should not get stale.

that would address the 'arch teams marking ahead of maintainer' issue, but in 
general, i think we need a testing mask of some sort separate from 
package.mask where we can put things like modular X, new KDE betas, new GNOME 
betas, e17 packages, etc...
-mike
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list