On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 3:34 PM, Kristian Fiskerstrand <k...@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On 12/14/2017 01:01 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: > > In the beginning the system would be opt-in. Then once we have > > confidence that it is working well the flag could potentially be made > > opt-out. > > The only place I imagine this being a good idea is for the kernel, given > the strict no break of userland policy (but even they fail from time to > time). For rest of the applications, even if we add tools to help > automate part of the stabilization, I'd very much oppose it being > automated without being initiated / acked by the maintainer. > This reminds me a bit of advertising actually: "Nineteenth century Philadelphia retailer John Wanamaker supposedly said “Half the money I spend on advertising is wasted; the trouble is I don't know which half.” " I feel like stabilization are similar; we know many of them are likely safe and don't need humans. But many are unsafe and require validation. Can we tell them apart? Perhaps Rich's flag is sufficient? Its also a risk mitigation problem. Is it better for Gentoo to have more packages marked stable (so that stable is closer to HEAD). Or is it more valauble for Gentoo to have a very old stable (like debian) and then have a split keywords system? I'm skeptical the keywords for most packages matter, particularly on common arches. Remember this is usually software that upstream already tested and released; so most of the bugs would be ebuild / Gentoo related. -A > > -- > Kristian Fiskerstrand > OpenPGP keyblock reachable at hkp://pool.sks-keyservers.net > fpr:94CB AFDD 3034 5109 5618 35AA 0B7F 8B60 E3ED FAE3 > >
