[arch-general] Fw: [arch-dev-public] [staging] repository: Let's give it a try!

[Guillaume Brunerie]

2010/8/12 Mario Figueiredo <mario.figueiredo at quiettech.org>

> On 11-08-2010 18:03, Pierre Schmitz wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 11 Aug 2010 17:41:06 +0100, Mario Figueiredo
>> <mario.figueiredo at quiettech.org>  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> This would definitely get me interested in Testing.
>>> Right now my Linux knowledge is limited and thus Testing is a no-go
>>> zone. If however I could have a guarantee that Testing offers the same
>>> package sanity insurance of the other mirrors, I could start
>>> participating.
>>>
>>
>> In that case testing wont still be for you. There wont be any guarantee
>> for testing and some pacakges might be just broken. The only thing you
>> can expect that we wont break testing _by intention_ due to moving
>> incomplete rebuilds in.
>>
>>
> Well, that was precisely my point, wasn't it? Testing implies bugged
> application builds.
> What it should however not imply is broken packages.


[testing] implies bugged application builds /and/ broken packages. That's
the point of [testing] to identify broken packages before they go to [core].


>
>>> It needs to be said that this is also reflection of what one should
>>> expect to encounter in the development process in the wild. Apart from
>>> the potential for collaboration, the idea that the Arch repos could
>>> mimic this development cycle is very appealing to me.
>>>
>>>     __________________________
>>>    |                          |
>>>    V                          V
>>> Development<->  Staging<->  Testing  ->   Release
>>>
>>> Packaging maintenance is taken away from the end user, giving them
>>> "safe" (it's still a beta, hence the quotes) access to Testing.
>>> Meanwhile developers would separate packaging from Testing,
>>> considerably giving them a lot more control over what users can access
>>> from Testing.
>>>
>>
>> Staging is not a new repo/layer between the developer and testing. It's
>> just meant to be a temporary storage for rebuilds. The current dev.
>> cycle wont be affected. So we'll still have:
>> dev->extra
>> dev->testing->core
>>
>>
> Aren't you contradicting yourself? Unless you don't plan to use staging,
> you won't risk anymore having broken rebuilds on testing.
>

No, but there can still be broken packages in [testing].