Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Tom Wijsman <TomWij@g.o>
To: mjo@g.o
Cc: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: revisiting our stabilization policy
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2014 02:42:53
Message-Id: 20140115033449.4c049db2@TOMWIJ-GENTOO
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: revisiting our stabilization policy by Michael Orlitzky
1 On Tue, 14 Jan 2014 21:21:51 -0500
2 Michael Orlitzky <mjo@g.o> wrote:
4 > On 01/14/2014 09:09 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
5 > >
6 > > After the package has been sitting in ~arch for 90 days with an open
7 > > stable request with no blockers that the arch team has not taken any
8 > > action on. We are not talking about randomly yanking package
9 > > versions, just doing something when arch teams are not responsive,
10 > > and it seems that the cleanest thing to do would be to remove the
11 > > old versions.
12 > >
13 >
14 > People running stable value... stability.
16 gentoo-sources-3.10.25 is stable on the most important arches; but,
17 other arches are left in the dark with a stable 3.10.7(-r1). Now, what
18 is well known is that upstream backports mostly known fixes;
19 as their goals is for this long term stable branch to increase the
20 value of what you claim people running stable need... stability.
22 But, as those people running stable on those arches are stuck on
23 3.10.7(-r1); heh, they're not running the more stable kernel at all.
25 > I would much rather wait for the arch teams to get un-busy than to be
26 > forced to upgrade to something untested.
28 If they get stabilization requests faster than they can stabilize, then
29 they will remain busy for as long as we don't get manpower to turn
30 around the tide; and as mentioned in the mail of a few minutes ago,
31 there are other options possible too. Forcing is just one of them.
33 > Why would I care if it takes another month?
35 What about another year? Or ten years? Why would users care?
37 > Strictly from a user's perspective. I don't, unless I do, in which
38 > case I know that I do, and I could just keyword the thing if I wanted
39 > to.
41 This is the exact same argument as in your other mail, which is your
42 point of view; this is under the assumption that you know that
43 stabilization is worsening over time, which users may not perceive.
45 --
46 With kind regards,
48 Tom Wijsman (TomWij)
49 Gentoo Developer
51 E-mail address : TomWij@g.o
52 GPG Public Key : 6D34E57D
53 GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2 ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D


File name MIME type
signature.asc application/pgp-signature


Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: revisiting our stabilization policy Michael Orlitzky <mjo@g.o>