1 |
On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 05:38:34PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
2 |
> On Sun, 27 Jun 2010 18:04:45 +0300 |
3 |
> Markos Chandras <hwoarang@g.o> wrote: |
4 |
> > Whilst I do understand that these arches are understaffed and they |
5 |
> > can't keep up with the increased stabilization load like x86/amd64 |
6 |
> > do, I still think that slow stabilization leads to an obsolete stable |
7 |
> > tree which I doesn't make sense to me after all. |
8 |
> |
9 |
> Which does Gentoo care about more: slightly increased convenience for |
10 |
> most developers, or considerably increased inconvenience for users of |
11 |
> minority archs? |
12 |
> |
13 |
> -- |
14 |
> Ciaran McCreesh |
15 |
I don't follow you. Increased convenience just for the devs? How?All I |
16 |
want is to have packages stabled ~60 days after the initial commit on |
17 |
tree instead of ~5 months. If arches can't do that then I don't want to |
18 |
mark that obsolete package stable at all. Whats the point? |
19 |
Also I would prefer to be able to drop ancient stable packages from the |
20 |
tree even if that means that there wont be any other stable version for |
21 |
this package to use. I 'd prefer a working tiny stable tree |
22 |
than a huge ancient one |
23 |
|
24 |
|
25 |
-- |
26 |
Markos Chandras (hwoarang) |
27 |
Gentoo Linux Developer |
28 |
Web: http://hwoarang.silverarrow.org |