George Shapovalov wrote: > The good thing about this approach is that it only requires an initial > investment of organizing and automating things but does not add any regular > work to the devs. In fact, if the "tested" category becomes popular enough, > it can cut the work for stable testers, may be even by something like a > factor of 10 eventually (due to less requests for explicit stabilizaion being > issued).. >
We might also aim to make it easy for users to mix-and-match levels of stability by package. I know it is possible already, but perhaps it could be improved, or pre-canned lists of packages that users might typically want bleeding-edge vs stable could be compiled. I think there are a large number of users who wouldn't mind less stability on packages that won't prevent booting or network-access or general use of their system. If some nice-to-have utility breaks I don't mind reverting it, but if baselayout goes haywire I could spend hours just getting my system to boot. I like your idea though. -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
