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 1L9qTX-00076k-BA for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2008 00:29:19 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id CBFF9E039C; Tue, 9 Dec 2008 00:29:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: from ug-out-1314.google.com (ug-out-1314.google.com [66.249.92.175]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C38AE039C for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2008 00:29:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: by ug-out-1314.google.com with SMTP id 30so778584ugs.39 for ; Mon, 08 Dec 2008 16:29:17 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:date:from:to:subject :message-id:in-reply-to:references:x-mailer:mime-version :content-type; bh=ck7JlPE7dNP/M0tOKE1J2JoOIaiNhH9DAB+oBQDvKns=; b=XTrbF5tSB+STN+oL7rnUBjVoUbRg6N3ACnF6igHMjgOsdXRKCVXoOEbDE58RZHjNuG Riy+o0EvUOOkwpEGZjZNFN8ATmvr9fMMU2hNzESJv3Pg6T4yIgCpL8xGU3ZpaK0b4Lmj 3/nqDdTlUXJzwE/14ZRWinYSpffvlYp523o28= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=date:from:to:subject:message-id:in-reply-to:references:x-mailer :mime-version:content-type; b=jFm97kRCbarcVhwLvVHKuRxoTFW6PaVfUQBmwEkBBtN/xIyA1kQAOMnUOemhORLoSr sbpvMpOZxojjqdhxiYJhvipzW1deto7UljtFm+qpDulsvGVmTHanP+YGLf2ecAyo2fwB xs6VdH5wDvWdmBqNzRO2D8HSnuriw/9n774e8= Received: by 10.67.116.12 with SMTP id t12mr2762861ugm.58.1228782556897; Mon, 08 Dec 2008 16:29:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from snowmobile (92-235-187-79.cable.ubr18.sgyl.blueyonder.co.uk [92.235.187.79]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id k1sm9021972ugf.3.2008.12.08.16.29.15 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Mon, 08 Dec 2008 16:29:16 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2008 00:29:09 +0000 From: Ciaran McCreesh To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] EAPI 2 policy for portage tree Message-ID: <20081209002909.291758a0@snowmobile> In-Reply-To: <1228782344.7351.5.camel@TesterTop3.tester.ca> References: <493DB50A.8090403@jmhengen.net> <1228781390.7351.2.camel@TesterTop3.tester.ca> <20081209001123.16281209@snowmobile> <1228782344.7351.5.camel@TesterTop3.tester.ca> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.6.1 (GTK+ 2.14.4; 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: multipart/signed; boundary="Sig_/dJiwl+C=u+CIYxqkMDgn9Fp"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=PGP-SHA1 X-Archives-Salt: 1e13c796-6d3e-4f70-99d5-0ae45c47a756 X-Archives-Hash: f3a378b418b1b52d1d232f5483720564 --Sig_/dJiwl+C=u+CIYxqkMDgn9Fp Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon, 08 Dec 2008 19:25:44 -0500 Olivier Cr=C3=AAte wrote: > > The "can be tested properly" phase is when it's in ~arch... >=20 > That also means that to pull a significant number of ebuilds it forces > mostly everyone to test it.. and that part is annoying.. If you don't like it, don't run ~arch. > The testing should be two phased, the first for regression (against > existing ebuilds), and once thats stable, then we can test with new > ebuilds... Uh, regression testing's handled by the package manager's extensive set of unit tests, which can cover this with targetted accuracy with much more reliability than making sure random ebuilds still work. What you're suggesting here is making everyone wait four more months for no increase in safety. --=20 Ciaran McCreesh --Sig_/dJiwl+C=u+CIYxqkMDgn9Fp Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAkk9u9cACgkQ96zL6DUtXhE0YACg5VbeZYzEY+OW91ur116eoS/R OsQAn0h5dIFMoC+wsNHV4wmFaFvZ4xBk =wiZf -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Sig_/dJiwl+C=u+CIYxqkMDgn9Fp--