On Sat, Nov 12, 2005 at 02:26:41PM +0900, Jason Stubbs wrote:
> On Saturday 12 November 2005 08:14, Brian Harring wrote:
> > Might be worth noting that as of my last sync, .53* and friends are
> > *still* ~arch. 
> 
> Yep, waiting on approval from the arch teams before going stable. I'll be 
> posting a notification here when it happens as well. While waiting on the
> arch teams has extended the ~arch time of .53_preX, they've also exposed
> regressions that wouldn't have been picked up otherwise. Other than 
> documentation concerns, they seem happy with .53 as it stands and I really 
> don't want to jeopardize (that's a weird lookin' word) that.
> 
> How's this for a compromise? Release the current 2.0.53 into stable so that 
> 2.0.51.22-r3 can be dropped out of the picture altogether. Then release a 
> 2.0.53.1 into ~arch with the lib handling fix so that we can get some 
> guaranteed testing time of the patch. In a table:
> 
> 2.0.53       arch
> 2.0.53_p1    ~arch
> 2.0.54_pre1  package.mask
> 
> After a couple of weeks, move 2.0.53_p1 to stable and drop 2.0.53.
No major complaints on general idea, dependant on timeframe (outside 
of our control).

*cough* that's that funky _p1 you're using there? :)
~harring