Re: [gentoo-dev] Three teir portage: stable, prestable, unstable?

["brett holcomb" <brettholcomb@charter.net>]

What's wrong with the alpha beta being part of ~arch?  If 
someone is working with alpha/beta stuff they know what 
they're looking for?  I really don't see a need to have a 
multi-tier mess to keep track of alpha/beta/gamma stuff. 
 If it's arch it is stable and works.  If it's ~arch it 
may be broken and break your system.  When the developer 
deems it's okay it moves to arch.


On Tue, 07 Oct 2003 19:49:56 +0100
  Ian Leitch <port001@gentoo.org> wrote:
>On Tue, 2003-10-07 at 15:30, foser wrote:
>> I think the the problem is uninformedness about the 
>>policy, does it even
>> get properly read by new devs ? They assume they can do 
>>it because they
>> see another dev do it and so it spreads, you don't solve 
>>these problems
>> by accommodating them. 
>
>OK, so say something was done and from now on all devs 
>only submited
>packages to ~arch that they deemed stable but whos ebuild 
>could do with
>some more testing. Where does that leave the beta and 
>alpha software
>that a lot of Gentoo users love so much (myself 
>included)? Places like
>BreakMyGentoo would only become bigger and more breakage 
>would incur
>from the lack of QA. If we had an unstable branch, devs 
>would be able to
>keep up Gentoo's repretation of being a bleeding edge 
>meta-distribution.
>At the same time we could offer alpha gnome releases 
>within our control.
>Ofcourse a plan to combat the extra pointless bug reports 
>would need to
>be thought about, but I see that as a small side effect 
>compared to the
>benefits. 
>
>Regards,
>Ian.  
>
>
>--
>gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
>


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list