From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org)
by nuthatch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.54)
id 1FOeoi-0004x1-HQ
for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Wed, 29 Mar 2006 17:50:48 +0000
Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.6/8.13.5) with SMTP id k2THjMsb016409;
Wed, 29 Mar 2006 17:45:22 GMT
Received: from aa003msg.fastwebnet.it (213-140-2-70.ip.fastwebnet.it [213.140.2.70])
by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.6/8.13.5) with ESMTP id k2THTDgu008536
for <gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org>; Wed, 29 Mar 2006 17:29:13 GMT
Received: from ms005msg.fastwebnet.it (10.31.41.25) by aa003msg.fastwebnet.it (7.2.069.1)
id 4425E7D20015D2A8 for gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org; Wed, 29 Mar 2006 19:29:13 +0200
Received: from [37.1.3.90] (37.1.3.90) by ms005msg.fastwebnet.it (7.2.070) (authenticated as cyclopia)
id 43F1EB820119D27B for gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org; Wed, 29 Mar 2006 19:24:47 +0200
Message-ID: <442ADEE6.7050300@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2006 19:24:22 +0000
From: "b.n." <brullonulla@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.7 (X11/20051016)
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
Precedence: bulk
List-Post: <mailto:gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gentoo-user+help@gentoo.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gentoo-user+unsubscribe@gentoo.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gentoo-user+subscribe@gentoo.org>
List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail <gentoo-user.gentoo.org>
X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@gentoo.org
Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org
Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Re: KDE version
References: <20060329161239.55954.qmail@web32013.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <200603291837.34629.uwix@iway.na>
In-Reply-To: <200603291837.34629.uwix@iway.na>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Archives-Salt: 07c8273a-ce15-4be9-bd67-feffa87d3fab
X-Archives-Hash: dcf87c41e52435e89a39fad43a132ba3
>>How about a crazier idea:
>>
>>Each package has a stability rating from 0-99 per
>>architecture.
>>0 means totally untested/unstable and 99 means rock
>>solid/no bugs. (0-33~unstable, 34-66~testing,
>>67-99~stable)
>>Each new package starts at 50. Whenever a user uses
>>the package, he can then vote on it by giving +1 or -1
>>(on the website or through portage).
>
> Indeed, a crazy idea. Technical issues like stability, which technology to
> use, how to implement a certain functionality, whether a bug is fixed,... can
> not be subject to voting. Period. Someone actually has to look into the
> matter and decide on technical merits.
Anyway, the idea of a finer granularity for stability branches shouldn't
be throwed away. The score could be given by developers, following some
rules (bugs filed vs. time, etc.)
Without using a 0-99 range (it seems too much granular imho), a 0-10
range could be nice (0-not working / 10-production level rock solid).
Is there already some example of such usage?
m.
--
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list