| 1 |
On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 03:05:41PM +0100, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote: |
| 2 |
> > Isn't it implied that any stabilisation is approved by the maintainer? |
| 3 |
> > Has it ever been acceptable to go around stabilising random packages? |
| 4 |
> > |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> Explicit > Implicit when we're updating things anyways. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> There are scenarios where e.g Security is calling for stabilization , |
| 9 |
> I'll add some info to the draft security GLEP with some requirements for |
| 10 |
> when this can happen without maintainer involvement as well.. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> Ultimately maintainer is responsible for the state of the stable tree |
| 13 |
> for the packages they maintain and should be taking proactive steps for |
| 14 |
> this also for security bugs, it doesn't "always" happen like that..... |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
The interaction of this proposal and the prior discussion of allow |
| 17 |
maintainers to document the maintenance policy of given packages is |
| 18 |
where it would really come into play. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
Using two packages for examples: |
| 21 |
app-admin/diradm: I am the upstream author as well as the package |
| 22 |
maintainer. I care about it being marked stable. I'd prefer the normal |
| 23 |
policy of other people asking me (with timeout) before touching it. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
app-admin/cancd: It's a very obscure package that I put in the tree |
| 26 |
because I needed it, but I haven't personally used it in many years. |
| 27 |
I fix the packaging if it's broken only. |
| 28 |
I'm inclined to mark it with 'anybody-may-bump/fix/stabilize'. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
-- |
| 31 |
Robin Hugh Johnson |
| 32 |
Gentoo Linux: Dev, Infra Lead, Foundation Trustee & Treasurer |
| 33 |
E-Mail : robbat2@g.o |
| 34 |
GnuPG FP : 11ACBA4F 4778E3F6 E4EDF38E B27B944E 34884E85 |
| 35 |
GnuPG FP : 7D0B3CEB E9B85B1F 825BCECF EE05E6F6 A48F6136 |
Archives