From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from rproxy.gmail.com (rproxy.gmail.com [64.233.170.196])
by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id j3OKTAC0021210
for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Sun, 24 Apr 2005 20:29:11 GMT
Received: by rproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id f1so1477408rne
for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Sun, 24 Apr 2005 13:29:20 -0700 (PDT)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws;
s=beta; d=gmail.com;
h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references;
b=nFIOTFIXbE10h2JknUmHw+aHuWuzMjL74EgKY4vJ7byDvnCuzzp6NRO0scgANFT+x28hLJm5yLdytJb6h//Y6lFs/0FhV0kTAHWX721SGCo3DZZjkyYOQIOV+GcQ6joGEIhWdo2BnKGDL6Rwz3xOBrW8VGZylQ6hxnhdKv76HdY=
Received: by 10.38.74.21 with SMTP id w21mr5689527rna;
Sun, 24 Apr 2005 13:29:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.38.76.66 with HTTP; Sun, 24 Apr 2005 13:29:19 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <8953a1db05042413295a3a4621@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 24 Apr 2005 21:29:19 +0100
From: Paul Waring <pwaring@gmail.com>
To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Committing straight to stable
In-Reply-To: <20050424144444.58715f9c@snowdrop>
Precedence: bulk
List-Post: <mailto:gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gentoo-dev+help@gentoo.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+unsubscribe@gentoo.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+subscribe@gentoo.org>
List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail <gentoo-dev.gentoo.org>
X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org
Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <20050424144444.58715f9c@snowdrop>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by robin.gentoo.org id j3OKTAC0021210
X-Archives-Salt: abbf7dfc-90c1-4ffe-852a-efc492d9ce86
X-Archives-Hash: 49bd27241c00f39f01988444d7a514f8
On 4/24/05, Ciaran McCreesh <ciaranm@gentoo.org> wrote:
> Since keywording policy seems to be being ignored again... Don't *ever*
> commit new ebuild revisions straight to stable, even if you think it's a
> trivial fix. There are plenty of things that could go wrong even with
> simple patches -- for example, if you accidentally included some CVS Id:
> lines in your patch, they'll get nuked when you do the commit. And, if
> you commit straight to stable, you end up breaking arch rather than just
> ~arch.
Why not have a three strike rule - anyone who commits something
straight to stable 3 times in a given period (say 6 months) has their
CVS access revoked.
Paul
--
Rogue Tory
www.roguetory.org.uk
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list