public inbox for gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
Search results ordered by [date|relevance]  view[summary|nested|Atom feed]
thread overview below | download: 
* Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: rfc: revisiting our stabilization policy
  @ 2014-01-23 22:38 99%                         ` Tom Wijsman
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 1+ results
From: Tom Wijsman @ 2014-01-23 22:38 UTC (permalink / raw
  To: steev; +Cc: gentoo-dev

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1942 bytes --]

On Thu, 23 Jan 2014 14:55:34 -0600
Steev Klimaszewski <steev@gentoo.org> wrote:

> On Thu, 2014-01-23 at 20:13 +0100, Tom Wijsman wrote:
> The complaint is slow to stable arches

Yes.

> by specifying "-* arch" it would signify that ONLY that arch uses
> that version of the ebuild - and it would be up to the arch team to
> remove it once they've stabled the new version - and considering the
> complaint is only about slow arches, there's nothing additional to
> specify in there - it's REMOVING arches that have stabled a newer
> version already, so they are unaffected.  

As this is a suggestion that is made by someone else, whom I have
already replied to stating this is a world apart from the discussion
in this thread; I am skipping this entire paragraph, I think you meant
to send the reply to the other person with his/her post as In-Reply-To.

> On the other hand, you're suggesting that we don't actually bother
> with stabling things or actually testing that things are properly
> stable, allowing anyone to decide when something is stable, whether
> they have access to the hardware to actually test that it works.

This is missing reference, and thus I doubt if that is my suggestion.
Looking back at the entire context of this thread, I have made several
"ideas" as various options; which was done as to feed the discussion to
consider several viewpoints.

> You and a few others keep talking in the theoretical

This thread is based on an actual problem.

> while I've shown an actual problem but you and the others
> conveniently ignore ACTUAL problems in favor of your possible
> problems.  Please stop.

Well, as seen on #gentoo-dev you shoot down solutions. Please consider.

-- 
With kind regards,

Tom Wijsman (TomWij)
Gentoo Developer

E-mail address  : TomWij@gentoo.org
GPG Public Key  : 6D34E57D
GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2  ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 490 bytes --]

^ permalink raw reply	[relevance 99%]

Results 1-1 of 1 | reverse | options above
-- pct% links below jump to the message on this page, permalinks otherwise --
2014-01-15  1:11     [gentoo-dev] rfc: revisiting our stabilization policy Michael Orlitzky
2014-01-15  1:23     ` Tom Wijsman
2014-01-15  1:36       ` Michael Orlitzky
2014-01-15  2:09         ` William Hubbs
2014-01-15  2:21           ` Michael Orlitzky
2014-01-15  2:46             ` William Hubbs
2014-01-16  7:28               ` Christopher Head
2014-01-16 22:44                 ` Tom Wijsman
2014-01-19 22:31                   ` Christopher Head
2014-01-20  0:47                     ` Tom Wijsman
2014-01-23 18:12                       ` [gentoo-dev] " Steven J. Long
2014-01-23 19:13                         ` Tom Wijsman
2014-01-23 20:55                           ` Steev Klimaszewski
2014-01-23 22:38 99%                         ` Tom Wijsman

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox