1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
2 |
Hash: SHA256 |
3 |
|
4 |
On 02/04/14 03:28 PM, hasufell wrote: |
5 |
> I'm just not sure what any of the randomly filed stablereqs are |
6 |
> for. It doesn't help anyone, unless the guy who filed it actually |
7 |
> uses it or if it is a blocker for another stabilization. |
8 |
> |
9 |
> It's annoying me for some time now. I expect maintainers to keep |
10 |
> track of their packages and have a scheme when and what to |
11 |
> stabilize. |
12 |
> |
13 |
> So if you cannot provide any useful information, don't file |
14 |
> stablereqs. |
15 |
> |
16 |
|
17 |
The idea, I believe, was that it's supposed to be a way for ensuring |
18 |
stable doesn't get too far behind ~arch, by pushing for stabilization |
19 |
automatically after a certain amount of time. It's an "opt-out" |
20 |
approach rather than the "opt-in" approach we have without such a |
21 |
system. Of course it does sort of have to be followed up with an |
22 |
auto-AT-CC after a certain amount of time too, for it to be effective. |
23 |
|
24 |
In general, i think the idea here makes some sense. However, it also |
25 |
makes sense that certain dev's work flows need to be taken into |
26 |
account (ie, certain or all of their packages are not auto-stabilized) |
27 |
and (as per the original post) sometimes multiple versions should go |
28 |
stable at once, in different slots. |
29 |
|
30 |
|
31 |
notes.txt or similar in the tree could help. I would also recommend |
32 |
(as i've brought up before) that anyone who doesn't mind other random |
33 |
dev's touching packages, should put a note here too (and vice versa, |
34 |
if said dev is adamant that nobody should touch their packages). |
35 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
36 |
Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) |
37 |
|
38 |
iF4EAREIAAYFAlM8yLEACgkQ2ugaI38ACPCXBgD/SaELIQSLsPHv8/FgryQlxPFp |
39 |
bc8VBveZbDPTc523rcYA/2MIAwocA44bdBmWylxkoHGep3JSjLb43Cy4CyUb3hIj |
40 |
=mehg |
41 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |