Archives
Archives
| From: | Peter Stuge <peter@×××××.se> | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| To: | gentoo-dev@l.g.o | ||
| Subject: | Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: rfc: revisiting our stabilization policy | ||
| Date: | Sun, 26 Jan 2014 04:53:13 | ||
| Message-Id: | 20140126045302.14342.qmail@stuge.se | ||
| In Reply to: | Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: rfc: revisiting our stabilization policy by Rich Freeman |
||
| 1 | Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 2 | > It seems like the simplest solution in these cases is to just have |
| 3 | > them focus on @system packages for the stable tree, and let users |
| 4 | > deal with more breakage outside of that set |
| 5 | |
| 6 | Why not make stable completely optional for arch teams? |
| 7 | |
| 8 | |
| 9 | //Peter |
| Subject | Author |
|---|---|
| Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: rfc: revisiting our stabilization policy | Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o> |