| 1 |
On Wed, Apr 07, 2004 at 09:39:04AM -0700, David Sparks wrote: |
| 2 |
> Going by these bugs: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=40831 |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=47112 |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> it seems that some ebuilds don't do the usual month long cycle at ~arch |
| 9 |
> before being promoted to arch status. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
The first bug refers to a Portage problem that seems to have nothing at |
| 12 |
all to do with ~arch; can you explain why you referenced it? |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
I can't speak for the second, except that developers sometimes make last |
| 15 |
minute changes and forget to test them. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
> Is there a list of the apps that don't have to have their ebuilds QA'd |
| 18 |
> before being marked stable? |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
One month is an approximate guideline. It's up to the maintainer. If you |
| 22 |
feel a specific maintainer is consistently screwing up, please contact |
| 23 |
devrel@g.o. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
-- |
| 26 |
Jon Portnoy |
| 27 |
avenj/irc.freenode.net |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
-- |
| 30 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives