[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       gentoo-dev
Subject:    Re: [gentoo-dev] Ebuild bumping policy wrt KEYWORDS
From:       foser <foser () gentoo ! org>
Date:       2004-08-31 13:23:18
Message-ID: 1093958598.26445.36.camel () rivendell
[Download RAW message or body]


On Thu, 2004-08-26 at 16:04 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 16:51:43 +0200 Carsten Lohrke <carlo@gentoo.org>
> wrote:
> | From a package maintainer perspective, I'm not fine with it. Imho an
> | arch should simply not go stable, before the package maintainer marks
> | his arch stable. I cannot care for arch maintainers - and their users
> | - if they run into problems, e.g. due to dependency changes while I do
> | not consider the ebuild stable. If the arch maintainer thinks, he
> | knows a package better than me and cannot even ask before doing so -
> | o.k., not my problem. We had the discussion a while back...
> 
> Personally I prefer my original wording:
> 
> > Arch teams: when moving from ~arch to arch on an actively maintained
> > package where you're going ahead of the maintainer's arch, it's best
> > to consult first.  You don't necessarily have to follow the
> > maintainer's advice, but at least listen to what they have to say.

It's basically the same thing as carlo said, only covered in a nice
sauce of political correctness. It's pretty simple, without a real good
reason an arch should never go beyond the maintainers arch & never
without checking back with the maintaining herd even.

So, your 'original wording' is no policy at all, it's just trying to
give a wrong sense of QA which is completely lacking from it & is just
trying to maintain the status-quo you enjoy at this point.

- foser

["signature.asc" (application/pgp-signature)]

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]