| 1 |
El jue, 24-11-2011 a las 12:12 -0500, Rich Freeman escribió: |
| 2 |
> On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 11:35 AM, Ian Stakenvicius <axs@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> > .should ~arch packages with no maintainer really be moved to stable?* |
| 4 |
> > |
| 5 |
> > (* assuming no other outside forces, like it's a dep of something else |
| 6 |
> > that needs to go stable) |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> I support stabilizing bug-free newer versions of maintainer-needed |
| 9 |
> packages that already have stable versions. I'm not sure I'd extend |
| 10 |
> that to stabilizing packages that have no stable versions already. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
I agree with stabling newer version but NOT to stable maintainer-needed |
| 14 |
packages that has no stable version currently :) |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
> I see getting stable users on the ~arch version as a win-win since it |
| 17 |
> means less maintenance of older version (without a maintainer), and |
| 18 |
> will likely give the stable user a more stable experience in reality |
| 19 |
> than what they already have. |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
I have also seen some maintainer-needed packages need to get a newer |
| 23 |
version stable to fix some old opened bugs |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
> Those benefits don't exist for a package that has no stable versions |
| 26 |
> to begin with. |
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
> Rich |
| 29 |
> |
| 30 |
> |
Archives