| 1 |
Vapier wrote: [Sun Sep 04 2005, 01:00:41PM CDT] |
| 2 |
> this isnt quite true ... non-x86 archs usually take their queues for |
| 3 |
> when packages should be moved to stable from the maintainer of the |
| 4 |
> package |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
Perfectly reasonable. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
> in other words, arch teams generally defer to maintainers (and rightly |
| 9 |
> so) as to when newer versions should go stable |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
I agree that the arch teams shouldn't be marking packages stable in |
| 12 |
advance of when the the maintainer thinks it's ready. At the same time, |
| 13 |
it's the respective arch teams, as "owners" of their entire stable tree, |
| 14 |
who (in my opinion) should have the final "okay" on a package going |
| 15 |
stable, since they're the ones with experience of the entire stable |
| 16 |
tree. Does that make a bit more sense? |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
-g2boojum- |
| 19 |
-- |
| 20 |
Grant Goodyear |
| 21 |
Gentoo Developer |
| 22 |
g2boojum@g.o |
| 23 |
http://www.gentoo.org/~g2boojum |
| 24 |
GPG Fingerprint: D706 9802 1663 DEF5 81B0 9573 A6DC 7152 E0F6 5B76 |
Archives