Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Samuli Suominen <ssuominen@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in dev-libs/confuse: confuse-2.7.ebuild ChangeLog
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2013 06:38:58
Message-Id: 513D7B52.7070309@gentoo.org
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in dev-libs/confuse: confuse-2.7.ebuild ChangeLog by Jeroen Roovers
1 On 10/03/13 20:04, Jeroen Roovers wrote:
2 > On Sun, 3 Mar 2013 12:44:18 +0100
3 > Tomáš Chvátal <tomas.chvatal@×××××.com> wrote:
4 >
5 >> If I remember correctly the damn rule is to put it for 30 days into
6 >> testing, and as you said there was no previous version on arm so users
7 >> could've reported some issues, i agree that sometimes you have to
8 >> ignore the rules to really fix stable, but was this such case for
9 >> sure?
10 >
11 > I've done straight to stable keywording _many_ times. The rationale is
12 > that with no previous version stable for a particular architecture,
13 > there really are no users who could see _regressions_, hence waiting
14 > the nominal thirty days is meaningless in this case.
15
16 agreed, this is how I work too