Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: "Steven J. Long" <slong@××××××××××××××××××.uk>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: [gentoo-dev] Re: rfc: revisiting our stabilization policy
Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2014 18:00:30
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: revisiting our stabilization policy by Tom Wijsman
1 On Mon, Jan 20, 2014, Tom Wijsman wrote:
2 > On Sun, 19 Jan 2014, Christopher Head wrote:
3 > > If stable really is falling behind and the backlog is always growing,
4 > > obviously something has to be done. I just don't want "something" to
5 > > mean "don't have a stable tree". The stable tree provides me with a
6 > > benefit. If standards have to slip a bit to maintain timeliness, then
7 > > I'd prefer a stable tree that's as stable as practical, accepting
8 > > reality-- perhaps where users are able to submit reports of working
9 > > packages, or where we let platform-agnostic packages be stabilized
10 > > after one arch has tested, or various of the other suggestions in this
11 > > thread. Just not no stable tree at all.
12 >
13 > +1 as long as we can find effort and ways to keep it around.
15 What? Without a stable tree, Gentoo is useless afaic.
17 I don't think that's what was being proposed, though. The question was
18 really the old complaint about slow architectures; the "-* arch"
19 solution sounds like the most reasonable definition of "dropping"
20 keywords, in the absence of AT communication otherwise.
22 --
23 #friendly-coders -- We're friendly, but we're not /that/ friendly ;-)


Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: rfc: revisiting our stabilization policy Tom Wijsman <TomWij@g.o>