| 1 |
On Wed, 2008-04-16 at 11:49 +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote: |
| 2 |
> > thirty days is the norm for the minimal period between an ebuilds last |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
It is the norm. It is not a requirement. In fact, it is specifically a |
| 5 |
"guideline" rather than a hard rule. It is up to the maintainer's |
| 6 |
discretion when to ask for stabilization, just like it is up to the arch |
| 7 |
team's discretion when to actually *do* the stabilization. If you don't |
| 8 |
think that it's ready on your arch, say so, but be prepared to defend |
| 9 |
why you think so when the package maintainer, who should be much more |
| 10 |
familiar with the package, thinks that it is ready. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
> > On the other hand, maybe these early stabilisation bug reports are a |
| 13 |
> > sign of the times and we need to shorten the normal thirty day period, |
| 14 |
> > become even more of a cutting edge distro - or at least discuss the |
| 15 |
> > options. |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> I'd say leave the current norm and smack the misbehaving maintainers :) |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
Who says that they're misbehaving? Again, the maintainers probably know |
| 20 |
their packages better than anyone else, so why are we not trusting their |
| 21 |
judgement again? |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
-- |
| 24 |
Chris Gianelloni |
| 25 |
Release Engineering Strategic Lead |
| 26 |
Games Developer |
| 27 |
-- |
| 28 |
gentoo-dev@l.g.o mailing list |
Archives