| 1 |
On Sun, 4 Sep 2005 15:43:11 -0500 |
| 2 |
Grant Goodyear <g2boojum@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> I agree that the arch teams shouldn't be marking packages stable in |
| 5 |
> advance of when the the maintainer thinks it's ready. At the same |
| 6 |
> time, it's the respective arch teams, as "owners" of their entire |
| 7 |
> stable tree, who (in my opinion) should have the final "okay" on a |
| 8 |
> package going stable, since they're the ones with experience of the |
| 9 |
> entire stable tree. Does that make a bit more sense? |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
For the most part, this makes sense, However we do have times where a |
| 12 |
particular arch team may need to stabilize a package sooner in the case |
| 13 |
where earlier versions are broken. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
This is not entirely uncommon to see packages that used to compile with |
| 16 |
stable keywords no longer compile after a period of time. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
Cheers, |
| 19 |
-- |
| 20 |
Jason Wever |
| 21 |
Gentoo/Sparc Team Co-Lead |
Archives