Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Sergey Popov <pinkbyte@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: revisiting our stabilization policy
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2014 06:20:52
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: revisiting our stabilization policy by Tom Wijsman
1 15.01.2014 21:04, Tom Wijsman пишет:
2 > On Wed, 15 Jan 2014 15:40:20 +0400
3 > Sergey Popov <pinkbyte@g.o> wrote:
4 >
5 >> As i said earlier for similar proposals - the one option that i see
6 >> here to make all things going better - to recruit more people in arch
7 >> teams/arch testers. Other options lead us to nowhere, when stable
8 >> will be eliminated or transformed into fake.
9 >
10 > If eventually our existing approach yields no or worsening results, it
11 > would leads us nowhere as well; we can pick that option a few times,
12 > but if it doesn't improve anything we'll need to start reconsidering.
13 >
15 It can not go to no result, unless we have no breakages in stable,
16 stable REMAINS stable. If it contains old, but working software - then
17 it is stable.
19 As i said earlier, problem begins when we NEED to stabilize something to
20 prevent breakages and arch teams are slow.
22 --
23 Best regards, Sergey Popov
24 Gentoo developer
25 Gentoo Desktop Effects project lead
26 Gentoo Qt project lead
27 Gentoo Proxy maintainers project lead


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


Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: revisiting our stabilization policy Peter Stuge <peter@×××××.se>
Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: revisiting our stabilization policy Tom Wijsman <TomWij@g.o>