From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EA897139694 for ; Fri, 28 Jul 2017 00:04:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id DA1661FC0D6; Fri, 28 Jul 2017 00:04:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-wm0-x232.google.com (mail-wm0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::232]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 75DFD1FC0CB for ; Fri, 28 Jul 2017 00:04:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-wm0-x232.google.com with SMTP id m85so8597439wma.0 for ; Thu, 27 Jul 2017 17:04:07 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc; bh=4v3Dds3p77+I5q9wqeUMdSRyF9x36iSz8LAL1erdNg0=; b=knUIhzhdRR7POxA1Y8fcfruKzzhiduvkIDkS1Zn1HFx2VJugW3JlY8IkR9+Ik2B5wE GlJ1jDaD0NDc5M1LI6T7LucV13wuYQeGsMKv8693Hgbf0TOE1S/pnNMpxRdS02kNCW0c FRoseWXirXOWGpAu7LFoIg71qVzfPcPce3IZoFp9LAHHxElGgJwl16gVkr18iEwxotiz sk2zpVkIk/xogY1Pw/bYy6lEw3K18tIEK0m42HI29QenBHbYYCq0Q8zW83EWpGIJcEcj 9EpXdOv3jKbQ+lUJj/2NtWXEfOXrI4Q9kSRYbTZ2rb4Cbsp4x7IBGyAwIgsO45uExd4u zdMA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=4v3Dds3p77+I5q9wqeUMdSRyF9x36iSz8LAL1erdNg0=; b=rttQ9gspRqaVZIsx/Gl5RcXtbokaZ6V55oka+n9JoreiAhO5USexwo1txawb+XuEOs 5YC/oUjEhITpoEacY6sRnmZmHDWsimcijj3f0bY68M1brDCVJ+W/HR0K3+4e1bZF5qZk VrvTnX9MSvtNcozISm1Wh408cmCUavsvqsf8ES8wQukMswspzn5MYKBe6a8KPrZXV6Ic ZEQsSbVEVcsvzpw+hNq+rAHtL231377OAXSzCVOFVP8SM/50i8cYUxI4Y5oidVGR5Mv4 IIPEeajLedRisMIDGihXjK4Olggrce1oun6Lr32Njsq5H51SLPARTssyqV3Fzc58ufzW 9M9Q== X-Gm-Message-State: AIVw1137Smb05MnneHHyaIMXXzGNtWD7JDx2ISAmrgMxl43Kd0muZ6IM jxh95tZjNqe1LGo6tfsVG7rTIyoP45fd95A= X-Received: by 10.80.213.215 with SMTP id g23mr4961694edj.65.1501200246087; Thu, 27 Jul 2017 17:04:06 -0700 (PDT) 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 Sender: denis.dupeyron@gmail.com Received: by 10.80.144.140 with HTTP; Thu, 27 Jul 2017 17:03:25 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <20170724222223.6d359e47@sf> From: Denis Dupeyron Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2017 19:03:25 -0500 X-Google-Sender-Auth: STU2PfTc4bVBSaC7HvJ0sECzHlc Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Future of gentoo's stable and unstable trees: what are your thoughts? To: gentoo-dev Cc: wg-stable@gentoo.org, arch-leads@gentoo.org, Gentoo alpha AT , Gentoo AMD64 AT , amd64-fbsd@gentoo.org, Gentoo arm AT , arm64@gentoo.org, Gentoo hppa AT , Gentoo ia64 AT , Gentoo m68k AT , Gentoo mips AT , Gentoo ppc AT , Gentoo ppc64 AT , Gentoo s390 AT , Gentoo sh AT , Gentoo sparc AT , Gentoo x86 AT , x86-fbsd@gentoo.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="94eb2c1aedd667a30e0555556bdd" X-Archives-Salt: 6000ac9b-3adf-4890-b88c-c8954336841d X-Archives-Hash: ca62cf6765654f4c1c6184ec8e732a9b --94eb2c1aedd667a30e0555556bdd Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 6:41 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: > > When in the last 16 years was this 2 year period of running stable? > The general state of QA has varied quite a bit over that time. > I would say 3 or 4 years ago, roughly. > running unstable systemd has been Running unstable doesn't mean being stupid. > If unstable never breaks chances are we aren't actually using it for its > intended purpose, not that we > should be deliberately breaking things. There's this idea that unstable should break. But the initial idea was that unstable is what should be sent straight to stable, barring the occasional mistake. Unstable was never meant for ebuilds in development and very much in flux because of that. That's what package masks are for. --94eb2c1aedd667a30e0555556bdd Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On T= hu, Jul 27, 2017 at 6:41 PM, Rich Freeman <rich0@gentoo.org> = wrote:
When in the last 16 years was this 2 y= ear period of running stable?
The general state of QA has varied quite a bit over that time.

I would say 3 or 4 years ago, roughly.
= =C2=A0
running unstable systemd has bee= n

Running unstable doesn't mean being s= tupid.
=C2=A0
If unstable= never breaks chances are we aren't actually using it for its intended = purpose, not that we
should be deliberately breaking things.

The= re's this idea that unstable should break. But the initial idea was tha= t unstable is what should be sent straight to stable, barring the occasiona= l mistake. Unstable was never meant for ebuilds in development and very muc= h in flux because of that. That's what package masks are for.
--94eb2c1aedd667a30e0555556bdd--