From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org) by nuthatch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1HjYm2-0004Y8-8X for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Thu, 03 May 2007 10:42:58 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.0/8.14.0) with SMTP id l43AfwB6018515; Thu, 3 May 2007 10:41:58 GMT Received: from mail.marples.name (rsm.demon.co.uk [80.177.111.50]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.0/8.14.0) with ESMTP id l43Adct9015517 for ; Thu, 3 May 2007 10:39:39 GMT Received: from uberlaptop.development.ltl (uberlaptop.marples.name [IPv6:fee1::f20b:aaff:fe00:3]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.marples.name (Postfix) with ESMTP id 14A2D190056 for ; Thu, 3 May 2007 11:39:38 +0100 (BST) Date: Thu, 3 May 2007 11:39:33 +0100 From: Roy Marples To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for May Message-ID: <20070503113933.13686018@uberlaptop.development.ltl> In-Reply-To: <4639B651.2030903@gentoo.org> References: <20070501093001.9C84D64F39@smtp.gentoo.org> <46370F24.8000600@gentoo.org> <200705021649.32592.vapier@gentoo.org> <20070502220005.70f6e24a@snowflake> <20070503081145.7a775e71@uberpc.marples.name> <4639B651.2030903@gentoo.org> Organization: Gentoo X-Mailer: Claws Mail 2.9.1 (GTK+ 2.10.11; i686-gentoo-freebsd6.2) Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Archives-Salt: d3916363-b16c-45c2-be57-b587099a4156 X-Archives-Hash: b411539d3ee69d03a3f214cba7d5e5d0 On Thu, 03 May 2007 12:15:45 +0200 "Jos=C3=A9 Luis Rivero (yoswink)" wrote: > Ehm, IMHO call it discriminate is a big hard. Are the gnome-2.18 or=20 > beryl users discriminated or they should be using something different > to Gentoo? They only thing people have to do is use some ~arch branch=20 > packages, which isn't too difficult (in Gentoo). No no no. In my example we can only use one version of the game with the upstream servers. There is only 1 upstream server, we have to use it. So if it supports 6 archs and some of the arch teams take a few months to mark it stable then the chances are it will be out of date anyway and the "slacker arches" will never have a stable keyword. So remove the onus on slacker arches making games stable I just don't bother with the stable keyword for network games ever. Gnome-2.18 on the other hand is a desktop product with zero upstream interaction except with programs that have clearly defined protocols and are normally backwards compatible. Like say HTTP >=20 > This is how I see it: >=20 > Problem with keywording straight to stable is that arch teams are > very zealous about our stable branch. We put a lot of time trying > things to not fail in stable, and if an app is broken, we prefer to > not force the users to compile and install another broken (or unknown > to be broken) version and work to fix the current stable (patches or > bumping) together with the maintainer. Right, but if stable client version !=3D stable usptream server version it cannot be used anyway, making the stable keyword here a bit of a joke. > But if you send things, that you can't try, to stable, the qa baby > jesus will cry if it fails, because nobody has taken care of even > compile it in the arch :) Well, that's up to the arch teams I guess. Lots of things fail randomly on g/fbsd because of a patch added to fix a linux bug. Maybe when we g/fbsd gets a stable branch then we'll come down on the linux developers like a ton of bricks :) Thanks Roy -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list