Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Michael Palimaka <kensington@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: [gentoo-dev] Re: rfc: stabilization policies
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2013 08:24:06
Message-Id: kv1te0$nnt$1@ger.gmane.org
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: rfc: stabilization policies by Tom Wijsman
1 On 21/08/2013 18:10, Tom Wijsman wrote:
2 > On Wed, 21 Aug 2013 16:51:37 +1000
3 > Michael Palimaka <kensington@g.o> wrote:
4 >
5 >> On 21/08/2013 05:31, Tom Wijsman wrote:
6 >>
7 >>> On Tue, 20 Aug 2013 14:28:15 -0400
8 >>> Ian Stakenvicius <axs@g.o> wrote:
9 >>>
10 >>> That script has been running for long enough now. It doesn't work
11 >>> out...
12 >>
13 >> What do you mean when you say it doesn't work out?
14 >
15 > If it did, as we waited quite a while; we wouldn't have this thread.
16 >
17 As per your other post, it would be interesting to see who/what the
18 worst offenders are.
19
20 At least in the areas I usually work, I have found a combination of the
21 automatic stabilisation requests and imlate have definitely cut back on
22 the bitrot.

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: rfc: stabilization policies Tom Wijsman <TomWij@g.o>