From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([69.77.167.62] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1Kzxja-0002ix-U6 for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Tue, 11 Nov 2008 18:13:03 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id C701CE0388; Tue, 11 Nov 2008 18:12:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp-vbr19.xs4all.nl (smtp-vbr19.xs4all.nl [194.109.24.39]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 89E14E0388 for ; Tue, 11 Nov 2008 18:12:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: from epia.jer-c2.orkz.net (atwork-106.r-212.178.112.atwork.nl [212.178.112.106]) (authenticated bits=0) by smtp-vbr19.xs4all.nl (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id mABICjg4026490 for ; Tue, 11 Nov 2008 19:12:46 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from jer@gentoo.org) Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2008 19:12:41 +0100 From: Jeroen Roovers To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Proposal for how to handle stable ebuilds Message-ID: <20081111191241.021ce18b@epia.jer-c2.orkz.net> In-Reply-To: References: <20081110181334.GD7038@aerie.halcy0n.com> <4918D0BC.50202@gentoo.org> <4918DE04.8010207@gentoo.org> <49195BFA.7060404@gentoo.org> <20081111172450.04e02b38@epia.jer-c2.orkz.net> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.6.1 (GTK+ 2.12.11; i686-pc-linux-gnu) Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: by XS4ALL Virus Scanner X-Archives-Salt: 6bc15363-bd88-4050-9aae-c3f6c609fe98 X-Archives-Hash: 0ac1dbfa2ce2f1e4d77b63b35f6f6035 On Tue, 11 Nov 2008 17:26:51 +0000 (UTC) Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@cox.net> wrote: > > Words > > like "production", "critical" and "important" can be applied as > > easily to the state of a company's or nation's system as to a > > single person's. > Yes, but it's a relative thing. >huge snip< That's what I said, only in many more words and with a confusing "Yes, but" at the start, as if you were complementing or correcting what I said. > IOW, I'd have agreed if the point was that it's a machine that's > useful to the user and that he doesn't want broken, and we should > behave accordingly, but the triple emphasis of important, production, > critical, seemed a bit undue for the lengths to which an ordinary > user goes or the priority he reveals by his own actions. And if his > actions reveal a SERIOUS priority in the area, than he's already > covered by definition. That's all I was saying. Um, you didn't say all of that. In fact you said none of that. You said: > If it's a "production, critical, important" system, then what is one > doing installing updates on it directly without verifying them on a > generally identical test system first? Users with only one Gentoo system to work with rely on ebuild maintainers and arch teams to run the "generally identical test systems" on their behalf (and respectively request and establish what the stable branch is). yoswink said this: > Are you going to install in your stable (production, critial, > important,...) system a combination of packages not tested before? He takes "stable" to mean one of three things, or maybe even something completely different ("...") that some user out there might take to mean "stable"[1]. Then you rip some of the punctuation out and put these words in his mouth: > If it's a "production, critical, important" system, going on to talk about the discrepancy between best practices in *corporate* software deployment and ignoring Gentoo's stable branch. You did it again in the "IOW" quotation above explaining it as a "triple emphasis" instead of what it was intended to denote, namely as a few possible examples of the meaning of "stability". Kind regards, jer [1] To which I responded by pointing to Gentoo's philosophical blurb.