Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Markos Chandras <hwoarang@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Policy for late/slow stabilizations
Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2010 17:21:18
Message-Id: 20100627172233.GB1414@Mystical
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] Policy for late/slow stabilizations by Ciaran McCreesh
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

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] Policy for late/slow stabilizations Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com>