| 1 |
On Fri, 2005-09-16 at 20:48 +0200, Paul de Vrieze wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Friday 16 September 2005 20:38, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 3 |
> > On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 19:42:36 +0200 Paul de Vrieze <pauldv@g.o> |
| 4 |
> > |
| 5 |
> > wrote: |
| 6 |
> > | Ok, I do think that we will need a way for the maintainer to indicate |
| 7 |
> > | that the package is stable. I'd be happy to leave stabilizing out of |
| 8 |
> > | my hands, but I wouldn't want my packages to be stabilized before I |
| 9 |
> > | deem it stable. |
| 10 |
> > |
| 11 |
> > Take it out of package.mask and leave it for thirty (package-dependent) |
| 12 |
> > days. If there is a pressing (eg security) reason for it to go to |
| 13 |
> > stable sooner than would normally be expected, file a bug and Cc: the |
| 14 |
> > relevant arch teams. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> I was thinking more like signalling that it shouldn't be stable yet, but |
| 17 |
> shouldn't be masked either. |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> Paul |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Here's my 2 cents on this...the general rule of thumb for an arch |
| 22 |
stabilizing a package has been 30 days in ~ with no open bugs. As far as |
| 23 |
I am concerned this mean that if a package maintainer does not want a |
| 24 |
package to follow these rules then indicating such is as easy as opening |
| 25 |
a bug against the package assigned to him/herself stating so and mark it |
| 26 |
for all arch's. That way when the arch team goes to look for bugs (and |
| 27 |
we are all doing this right???) before marking a package stable they |
| 28 |
will see the bug and know not to. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
Hell the bug can be as simple as "Don't mark this package stable yet for |
| 31 |
reasons x, y and z." Doing it this way has the added advantage of |
| 32 |
letting arch maintainers know about the reasons why the package |
| 33 |
shouldn't be marked stable so they know what they are getting into by |
| 34 |
going ahead of the package maintainer. |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
Personally I like this outlook a lot better then the maint ~maint option |
| 37 |
because it provides information and fits into present policy. All in all |
| 38 |
it really isn't that hard to open a bug. |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
If the package is truly not stable then it should really be moved back |
| 41 |
into p.mask anyway. |
| 42 |
|
| 43 |
-- |
| 44 |
Daniel Ostrow |
| 45 |
Gentoo Foundation Board of Trustees |
| 46 |
Gentoo/{PPC,PPC64,DevRel} |
| 47 |
dostrow@g.o |
| 48 |
|
| 49 |
-- |
| 50 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives