drobbins has pointed out that the paragraph in Chapter 4 (QA Policy) in section title (~ARCH in keywords) is too ambigious and doesn't mean anything. So we've agreed to re-word this into something more clear. So instead of : "This is not the equivalent of "testing" or "unstable" in other distributions." It should be replaced with: "There is a difference between using package.mask and ~arch for ebuilds. The use of ~arch denotes an <b>ebuild</b> requires testing. The use of package.mask denotes that the application or library itself is deemed unstable. For example, gimp-1.2.0 is the stable release from Gimp developers, and a new bug fix release is available as 1.2.1, a developer should mark the ebuild as ~arch for testing in portage because the release is deemed to be stable. In another example, Gimp decides to release an unstable/development series marked as 1.3.0. These ebuilds should be put in package.mask because the software itself is of development quality and is not recommended by the developers for distribution." I think this would clear up the sentence a whole lot. drobbins described a sentence to me to clarify, but my logs don't go back so far to see it. If he has a clearer version, please let us know. Thanks!
Daniel, can you agree with the spirit of this text? I'd like to apply this (with some minor fixes) but want a second opinion first...
Daniel?
i'd like to see this changed asap, i think without any more comments from daniel, the replacement should go ahead until a more policy-minded wordsmith can suggest a better representation. the more i look at that sentence i wrote, the more i cringe .. ;)
You are correct. I agree with your text. You agree with your text. So it goes in :p
Committed.
