| 1 |
On Monday 02 November 2009 16:17:07 Christian Faulhammer wrote: |
| 2 |
> Hi, |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis <Arfrever@g.o>: |
| 5 |
> > Some packages have new releases more than once a month and sometimes |
| 6 |
> > it's reasonable to not skip stabilization of any version. Given |
| 7 |
> > version of a package is usually no longer tested by users after |
| 8 |
> > release of a newer version, so I suggest the following change to the |
| 9 |
> > policy of stabilizations: Stabilization of given version of a package |
| 10 |
> > can be requested if this version has been in the tree for at least 10 |
| 11 |
> > days and a newer version of this package has been added to the tree. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> If you do that, you will see arch teams skip those stabilisations in a |
| 14 |
> daily rhythm. Honestly, who should do that work? Having every minor |
| 15 |
> release stable is a big nuisance for arch workers. |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> V-Li |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
This is way I keep asking for a complete report of manpower at least for amd64 |
| 20 |
and x86 arch teams ( and update the project pages as well ). We need real |
| 21 |
numbers so we adjust respectively the number of stabilization bugs we assign |
| 22 |
to them. |
| 23 |
-- |
| 24 |
Markos Chandras (hwoarang) |
| 25 |
Gentoo Linux Developer [KDE/Qt/Sound/Sunrise] |
| 26 |
Web: http://hwoarang.silverarrow.org |
Archives