| 1 |
On Tue, 14 Jan 2014 21:21:51 -0500 |
| 2 |
Michael Orlitzky <mjo@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 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. |
| 15 |
|
| 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 kernel.org 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. |
| 21 |
|
| 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. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
> I would much rather wait for the arch teams to get un-busy than to be |
| 26 |
> forced to upgrade to something untested. |
| 27 |
|
| 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. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
> Why would I care if it takes another month? |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
What about another year? Or ten years? Why would users care? |
| 36 |
|
| 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. |
| 40 |
|
| 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. |
| 44 |
|
| 45 |
-- |
| 46 |
With kind regards, |
| 47 |
|
| 48 |
Tom Wijsman (TomWij) |
| 49 |
Gentoo Developer |
| 50 |
|
| 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 |
Archives