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 1JVnOd-0000fa-Er for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sun, 02 Mar 2008 12:34:27 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id D85ADE0640; Sun, 2 Mar 2008 12:34:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vms040pub.verizon.net (vms040pub.verizon.net [206.46.252.40]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BAA5EE0640 for ; Sun, 2 Mar 2008 12:34:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: from gw.thefreemanclan.net ([71.242.211.138]) by vms040.mailsrvcs.net (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-6.01 (built Apr 3 2006)) with ESMTPA id <0JX3003E2SDCKP1E@vms040.mailsrvcs.net> for gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org; Sun, 02 Mar 2008 06:36:49 -0600 (CST) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by gw.thefreemanclan.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3037F1240CA for ; Sun, 02 Mar 2008 07:34:02 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 02 Mar 2008 07:34:02 -0500 From: Richard Freeman Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for March In-reply-to: <200803020948.50059.george@gentoo.org> To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Message-id: <47CA9EBA.9070204@gentoo.org> 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=UTF-8 Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit References: <20080301103002.A2AE266A22@smtp.gentoo.org> <20080301194555.29ecad7c@gentoo.org> <47CA226F.7000601@gentoo.org> <200803020948.50059.george@gentoo.org> User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.12 (X11/20080301) X-Archives-Salt: 6914405b-ae38-4a25-99ef-c9e4846f1422 X-Archives-Hash: 6d582937d4ac82d61a73b361081355da George Shapovalov wrote: > The good thing about this approach is that it only requires an initial > investment of organizing and automating things but does not add any regular > work to the devs. In fact, if the "tested" category becomes popular enough, > it can cut the work for stable testers, may be even by something like a > factor of 10 eventually (due to less requests for explicit stabilizaion being > issued).. > We might also aim to make it easy for users to mix-and-match levels of stability by package. I know it is possible already, but perhaps it could be improved, or pre-canned lists of packages that users might typically want bleeding-edge vs stable could be compiled. I think there are a large number of users who wouldn't mind less stability on packages that won't prevent booting or network-access or general use of their system. If some nice-to-have utility breaks I don't mind reverting it, but if baselayout goes haywire I could spend hours just getting my system to boot. I like your idea though. -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list