On Mon, Feb 07, 2011 at 06:45:10PM +0100, Andreas K. Huettel wrote: > > We've been discussing this @FOSDEM too. My suggestion was that any bug that > visibly hurts stable users should always be considered at least MAJOR in > bugzilla. > > To expand on this a bit more > * a stable update that makes the computer nonfunctional is definitely BLOCKER > (and should be reverted in CVS immediately when it becomes known, at latest > when it is understood, by anyone who is around at the time and can do so) > * a non-functional stable package in the system set should be CRITICAL. > > Just my 2ct, but it is really important not to hurt stable users. This is how > we lose most people. > The rolling way we stabilize the packages makes the stable tree pretty much fragile to breakages and stuff. This is because you cannot predict what is going to happen to the rest of the tree if you stabilize a newer package. It may have unpredictable consequences to the rest of the packages. My suggestion, as I said to fosdem, is to freeze, or take a snapshot if you like, of the current tree, stabilize what you need to stabilize, test the whole tree ( at least compile wise ) for a couple of weeks and then replace the existing stable tree. Of course this requires automated script testing, hardware facilities etc etc that we don't have so claiming that stable tree is "stable" is quite wrong.
Regards, -- Markos Chandras / Gentoo Linux Developer / Key ID: B4AFF2C2
pgpF2aIntpgO2.pgp
Description: PGP signature
