List Archive: gentoo-dev
Note: Due to technical difficulties, the Archives are currently not up to date.
provides an alternative service for most mailing lists.c.f. bug 424647
On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 05:38:34PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Jun 2010 18:04:45 +0300
> Markos Chandras <email@example.com> wrote:
> > Whilst I do understand that these arches are understaffed and they
> > can't keep up with the increased stabilization load like x86/amd64
> > do, I still think that slow stabilization leads to an obsolete stable
> > tree which I doesn't make sense to me after all.
> Which does Gentoo care about more: slightly increased convenience for
> most developers, or considerably increased inconvenience for users of
> minority archs?
> Ciaran McCreesh
I don't follow you. Increased convenience just for the devs? How?All I
want is to have packages stabled ~60 days after the initial commit on
tree instead of ~5 months. If arches can't do that then I don't want to
mark that obsolete package stable at all. Whats the point?
Also I would prefer to be able to drop ancient stable packages from the
tree even if that means that there wont be any other stable version for
this package to use. I 'd prefer a working tiny stable tree
than a huge ancient one
Markos Chandras (hwoarang)
Gentoo Linux Developer