Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev <gentoo-dev@l.g.o>
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: rfc: revisiting our stabilization policy
Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2014 21:35:35
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: rfc: revisiting our stabilization policy by Peter Stuge
1 On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 1:56 PM, Peter Stuge <peter@×××××.se> wrote:
2 >
3 > I don't think that's "completely optional" though, it sounds like a
4 > one-way function. If have ever stabilized a package once then must
5 > ensure a stable package forever.
6 >
7 > I think arbitrarily removing stable versions should also be an option,
8 > and I think package managers would be able to deal with that without
9 > much extra effort?
11 Well, I think we certainly should be able to de-stabilize packages.
12 I've seen this happen in the past, especially when the need to not be
13 stable is inherent in the package itself (such as game clients that
14 need to be synchronized with servers - only one version will ever work
15 at any time buggy or not).
17 Ideally this should really be the result of communication between the
18 maintainer and arch team. What we definitely don't want is a package
19 that gets stabilized, and then six months later the whole package is
20 back at ~arch, and then six months later there is a stable version
21 again, and so on. That just isn't, well, stable.
23 However, if an arch team is feeling overwhelmed I'd strongly encourage
24 them to put out a bulletin telling maintainers to stop STABLEREQs for
25 non-system packages, or whatever other guidance they want to issue.
26 It has been pointed out that on these archs system packages often
27 don't work, so having those be stable at least lets them target
28 versions they want to fix up and lets users get a bootable system
29 without too much fuss. Falling back to a defensible position and all
30 that...
32 But, nobody needs anybody's permission to do any of this. Ideally the
33 arch team should take the leadership to establish a policy on their
34 arch which is maintainable. If they don't do that, well, then
35 maintainers complain and we get threads like this one. The arch team
36 has the greatest interest in having the arch work - I'd strongly
37 support them in creating any policy for their arch that they can
38 follow-through on.
40 Rich


Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: rfc: revisiting our stabilization policy Steev Klimaszewski <steev@g.o>