Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Ryan Hill <dirtyepic@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: [gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] Improve policy of stabilizations
Date: Thu, 05 Nov 2009 03:47:53
Message-Id: 20091104214823.64842abd@gentoo.org
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] Improve policy of stabilizations by Joseph Jezak
1 On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 16:02:16 -0500
2 Joseph Jezak <josejx@g.o> wrote:
3
4 > Ben de Groot wrote:
5 > > What about ppc64? They are MONTHS behind on stabilization,
6 > > even for security bugs (see bug 281821 for example). The Qt team
7 > > feels this is no longer acceptable. We propose that any arch that
8 > > can't keep up will be demoted to experimental status.
9 > >
10 > >
11 > ppc is also fairly far behind (much thanks to nixnut for keeping us
12 > going!). Part of the problem is that when I do get time to catch up,
13 > we're so buried in bugs, it's time consuming just to triage and figure
14 > out what to do next, and even to remember where I left off last.
15 >
16 > I would really help if there were better communication about what bugs
17 > absolutely need to be done ASAP and what can slide by for now.
18 >
19 > That said, please be a bit more patient with us, we just don't have the
20 > manpower to fix every single keywording bug immediately.
21
22 Is there any interest in allowing certain packages to be stabilized by the
23 maintainer without going through the arch teams? I always feel guilty when i
24 file stabilization bugs for app-doc pkgs.
25
26
27 --
28 fonts, Character is what you are in the dark.
29 gcc-porting,
30 wxwidgets @ gentoo EFFD 380E 047A 4B51 D2BD C64F 8AA8 8346 F9A4 0662

Attachments

File name MIME type
signature.asc application/pgp-signature

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] Improve policy of stabilizations Tobias Klausmann <klausman@g.o>
[gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] Improve policy of stabilizations Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@×××.net>
[gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] Improve policy of stabilizations Christian Faulhammer <fauli@g.o>