| 1 |
> On Sun, Mar 28, 2010 at 07:31:10PM +1300, Alistair Bush wrote: |
| 2 |
> > > On Saturday 27 of March 2010 21:58:41 William Hubbs wrote: |
| 3 |
> > > |
| 4 |
> > > It's really freaking silly to wait months for stabilization of some |
| 5 |
> > > random php/perl library that's known to work. |
| 6 |
> > |
| 7 |
> > Have you ever just considered closing the stabilization bug and ignoring |
| 8 |
> > the arch. If they take so long to mark your packages as stable why do |
| 9 |
> > you care about them enough to even attempt to stabilize anything on |
| 10 |
> > their arch. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> If the pkg isn't a leaf node, you wind up keeping older and older |
| 13 |
> versions lingering across multiple pkgs to keep it from breaking |
| 14 |
> stable. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
Oh no, I mean you stop filing stable requests for the arch *period*. So it |
| 17 |
just means you have to keep the last stable release for that arch around. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> This is assuming that it's still heavily frowned upon to remove the |
| 21 |
> only stable version available for a non-dead arch... |
| 22 |
> ~harring |
Archives