William L. Thomson Jr. wrote:
> IMHO I think it should be up to the package maintainer how close they
> want to follow upstream. With regard to development, progress, testing,
> qa, feedback. I think it's a very good thing, since it allows things to
> be caught before actual releases, during development.
>
> I know when I am developing stuff, it's way easier to address during the
> process rather than after the fact.
>
> But if there are any policies or etc. I surely do not want to be
> breaking them. Also this is not broken or really experimental stuff. If
> it was I would either p.mask, or put in an overlay.
>
> Although I feel things tend to get the greatest exposure and chance of
> user testing and feedback, if it's in tree
There is a bit of contradiction in what you said there.
Either the package is well tested, and should go into the tree, first
with ~arch keywords, and then eventually with arch keywords, or
it is experimental, and as such has to be outside of our main tree.

Thus you can either want to test stuff by giving it more exposure,
which implies the stuff is experimental, or you have stable stuff,
but then you shouldn't be talking about the development cycle of the
said software.



-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Reply via email to