On 05/04/2016 11:41 AM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
On 04/05/16 02:01 AM, Kent Fredric wrote:
On 4 May 2016 at 16:46, Matt Turner <matts...@gentoo.org> wrote:
Having built many stages for an "unstable" arch (mips) has taught me
one thing: it's awful being unstable-only. There's no end to the
compilation failures and other such headaches, none of which have
anything at all to do with the specific architecture.
Short of adding a middle level ("stable, wink wink nudge nudge") where
things at least compile, I think the current situation is actually
significantly better than the alternative of dropping them to
unstable.
I feel like there needs to be something inbetween, a mechanism where
things can be deemed "tentatively stable", where in they can still be
later destabilized if evidence compels it.
As it is, stabilization seems one-directional. If critical defects are
found in "stable" releases, they tend not to escalate in the other
direction.
And I understand why that is, but it doesn't stop me wishing otherwise.
But instead of adding a rung between stable and unstable ... maybe the
right approach is to add a layer /beneath/ stable : "Long term
stable".
Where long-term stable is "Known to be good at a deep and thorough
level by people who use the software regularly".
Long-term stable at this point is not something I'd suggest people set
as their keywords in general, but it would be a thing that would only
be granted to specific packages on a case-by-case basis, and it would
only be encouraged to be used in the sense of
/etc/portage/package.keywords , where mixing long-term stable and
stable would be "supported" ... somehow.
IDK, there's still a lot wrong with my ideas, but hopefully there's
some ball here to run with.
Rather than adding a third layer of stability and splitting the
userbase even further, how about we just be less shy about dropping
stable keywords on packages back to ~arch when we have bugs that can't
be resolved quickly? I know this isn't ideal given everyone --sync's
at different times and varying intervals, but if a particular ebuild
gets stabilized on an arch and is found to really not be ready at
least there's a recourse to undo the stabilization and stop -some-
users from getting the new version via their -uDN @world updates.
What might we need in terms of better PM support, for stable -> ~arch
keywording?
+1
Nice to know that when there is a bug on stable that a world upgrade
will fix the issue within a reasonable time frame. Even if it means some
downgrades.
