| 1 |
On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 16:33:13 -0400 Mike Frysinger <vapier@g.o> |
| 2 |
wrote: |
| 3 |
| ok, e17 packages dont count here. however, your hardcore view i |
| 4 |
| still dont buy. how about the baselayout-1.9.x -> baselayout-1.11.x |
| 5 |
| stabilization process ? are you telling me that arch teams should |
| 6 |
| have had the power to move those into stable without talking to the |
| 7 |
| maintainer ? baselayout may be a core package, but if you continue |
| 8 |
| with your hard rule here, then it doesnt matter. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
I'm saying that arch teams should be allowed to mark it stable if they |
| 11 |
think it's appropriate. Not that it must be moved to stable after $x |
| 12 |
days, but that it can be at the arch team's discretion. And any arch |
| 13 |
team which is silly enough to mark a broken baselayout stable has far |
| 14 |
bigger problems anyway... |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
-- |
| 17 |
Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (Vim, Shell tools, Fluxbox, Cron) |
| 18 |
Mail : ciaranm at gentoo.org |
| 19 |
Web : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm |
Archives