Re: [gentoo-dev] first council meeting

[Martin Schlemmer]

On Fri, 2005-09-16 at 16:59 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Friday 16 September 2005 04:44 pm, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 16:33:13 -0400 Mike Frysinger <vapier@g.o>
> >
> > wrote:
> > | ok, e17 packages dont count here.  however, your hardcore view i
> > | still dont buy.  how about the baselayout-1.9.x -> baselayout-1.11.x
> > | stabilization process ?  are you telling me that arch teams should
> > | have had the power to move those into stable without talking to the
> > | maintainer ?  baselayout may be a core package, but if you continue
> > | with your hard rule here, then it doesnt matter.
> >
> > I'm saying that arch teams should be allowed to mark it stable if they
> > think it's appropriate. Not that it must be moved to stable after $x
> > days, but that it can be at the arch team's discretion. And any arch
> > team which is silly enough to mark a broken baselayout stable has far
> > bigger problems anyway...
>
> baselayout is an example, any package can be used here (although not many are
> as critical)
>
> i'm saying that the maintainer may have a certain idea of when the package is
> ready for stable (a target feature set, working out certain quirks, etc...).
> your current hard view does not allow for that.  for example, i had an arch
> maintainer one time mark bash-3 stable before base-system was ready for it
> (readline, baselayout, etc... were going to be stabilized together).  i
> smacked them hard for it, but if we went with this hard view, it would have
> been perfectly acceptable behavior.

We still have KEYWORDS="-*".  Sure, I know many do not like it, and if
something was decided in regards to it, I missed it, but it is generally
seen as 'less severe' than a package.mask'd mask, and its local to the
package, so should not get stale.



-- 
Martin Schlemmer