| 1 |
On Tue, 14 Jan 2014 19:17:35 -0500 |
| 2 |
"Anthony G. Basile" <blueness@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On 01/14/2014 07:06 PM, Andreas K. Huettel wrote: |
| 5 |
> > Am Mittwoch, 15. Januar 2014, 00:49:28 schrieb Tom Wijsman: |
| 6 |
> >> On Tue, 14 Jan 2014 15:37:19 -0600 |
| 7 |
> >> |
| 8 |
> >> William Hubbs <williamh@g.o> wrote: |
| 9 |
> >>> Thoughts? |
| 10 |
> >> In this situation, I see three opposite ends of choices: |
| 11 |
> >> |
| 12 |
> > Here's another idea: |
| 13 |
> > |
| 14 |
> > 4. Friendly ask the arch teams / make a policy that @system |
| 15 |
> > packages come first. |
| 16 |
> > |
| 17 |
> > (maybe these stable requests could be marked "major" in bugzilla |
| 18 |
> > then?) |
| 19 |
> > |
| 20 |
> > |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> Actually that's a very good idea. In fact, since those are the |
| 23 |
> critical packages we can have the arch teams focus on them, and allow |
| 24 |
> more relax policies of stabilization on less critical packages. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Besides allowing certain packages to be set a higher policy, we could |
| 27 |
also recommend that maintainers lower it if needed; for example: |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
If I want to stabilize some plugin, it doesn't really have to be |
| 30 |
put "Normal" you know; I wouldn't bother it to be "Enhancement". |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
-- |
| 33 |
With kind regards, |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
Tom Wijsman (TomWij) |
| 36 |
Gentoo Developer |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
E-mail address : TomWij@g.o |
| 39 |
GPG Public Key : 6D34E57D |
| 40 |
GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2 ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D |
Archives