| 1 |
Jeroen Roovers wrote: |
| 2 |
> Dear ebuild maintainers, |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> thirty days is the norm for the minimal period between an ebuilds last |
| 6 |
> non-keywording change while in the tree and the usual call for |
| 7 |
> stabilisation. If you cannot find a pressing reason to push |
| 8 |
> stabilisation forward, then don't ask. In the last few days I have seen |
| 9 |
> several early calls for stabilisation (bugs #217148, #217845, #217841 |
| 10 |
> and #217839 for instance) where no adequate reason was given, in my |
| 11 |
> opinion. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
Given that 3 of the 4 are from one person, I wouldn't draw broad |
| 14 |
conclusion from this. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
> A good reason might be an important fix of a severe bug, a fix for a |
| 17 |
> build problem that couldn't be applied to a stable version but had to |
| 18 |
> go into an ebuild revision, or a version/revision that fixes a security |
| 19 |
> problem. |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> On the other hand, maybe these early stabilisation bug reports are a |
| 22 |
> sign of the times and we need to shorten the normal thirty day period, |
| 23 |
> become even more of a cutting edge distro - or at least discuss the |
| 24 |
> options. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
I'd say leave the current norm and smack the misbehaving maintainers :) |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
Caster |
| 29 |
-- |
| 30 |
gentoo-dev@l.g.o mailing list |
Archives