| 1 |
Thilo Bangert wrote: |
| 2 |
> > > Now what do people think about extending metadata.xml so that you |
| 3 |
> > > could have these |
| 4 |
> > > bugs filed automatically when there are no open bugs? Something like |
| 5 |
> > > a <auto-stable-request enabled="true"/> |
| 6 |
> > > element with the DTD setting the default as true and you could just |
| 7 |
> > > use a <auto-stable-request /> shorthand. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> good idea. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
+1 |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
> > |
| 14 |
> > I'm all for it. It would need to take version restrictions -- for |
| 15 |
> > example, I may be willing to have xorg-server 1.5.x go stable but not |
| 16 |
> > 1.4.x. |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> perhaps auto-stable should be the default (not needing the tag), only |
| 19 |
> allowing things to be masked from it. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
I'm not sure if it's really useful to have this as a default - for |
| 22 |
example i keep nagios-3 packages intentionally ~arch for now. Tagging |
| 23 |
them as "not ready for stabilization yet" would introduce something |
| 24 |
between ~arch masked and package.mask - i don't think that's worth the |
| 25 |
effort. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
From both a maintainers and arch-developers view: I'd like to see |
| 28 |
automatically generated stable requests, but I'd leave it up to the |
| 29 |
maintainer/herd/team to add architectures after a quick review (also if |
| 30 |
there's a auto-stable-request tag set in metadata!). |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
Tobias |
Archives