| 1 |
2011/9/20 Tomáš Chvátal <scarabeus@g.o>: |
| 2 |
> The issue here is that if some part of the tree looses lots of its |
| 3 |
> maintainers we as devs usually manage to shape it up enough for us in |
| 4 |
> testing but nobody ever bothers to wait that 30 days and open |
| 5 |
> stablereq. |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
An issue your suggestion doesn't address is when packages don't even |
| 8 |
stick around 30 days/etc. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
I know I've seen many packages where there is an ancient stable |
| 11 |
version that is never touched, and a much newer ~arch version that |
| 12 |
gets tweaked every 3-6 weeks. When it gets tweaked, often the old |
| 13 |
version is just removed immediately, or shortly after it is bumped. |
| 14 |
So, packages often don't stick around the 30 days it takes to |
| 15 |
stabilize them. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
Granted, this is a bit anecdotal so I can't speak for how big a |
| 18 |
problem this is in reality. However, for any stabilization scheme to |
| 19 |
work packages have to be, well, stable. :) |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Rich |
Archives