| 1 |
On Thu, 2004-08-26 at 16:04 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 16:51:43 +0200 Carsten Lohrke <carlo@g.o> |
| 3 |
> wrote: |
| 4 |
> | From a package maintainer perspective, I'm not fine with it. Imho an |
| 5 |
> | arch should simply not go stable, before the package maintainer marks |
| 6 |
> | his arch stable. I cannot care for arch maintainers - and their users |
| 7 |
> | - if they run into problems, e.g. due to dependency changes while I do |
| 8 |
> | not consider the ebuild stable. If the arch maintainer thinks, he |
| 9 |
> | knows a package better than me and cannot even ask before doing so - |
| 10 |
> | o.k., not my problem. We had the discussion a while back... |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> Personally I prefer my original wording: |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> > Arch teams: when moving from ~arch to arch on an actively maintained |
| 15 |
> > package where you're going ahead of the maintainer's arch, it's best |
| 16 |
> > to consult first. You don't necessarily have to follow the |
| 17 |
> > maintainer's advice, but at least listen to what they have to say. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
It's basically the same thing as carlo said, only covered in a nice |
| 20 |
sauce of political correctness. It's pretty simple, without a real good |
| 21 |
reason an arch should never go beyond the maintainers arch & never |
| 22 |
without checking back with the maintaining herd even. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
So, your 'original wording' is no policy at all, it's just trying to |
| 25 |
give a wrong sense of QA which is completely lacking from it & is just |
| 26 |
trying to maintain the status-quo you enjoy at this point. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
- foser |
Archives