1 |
2010-06-27 17:04:45 Markos Chandras napisaĆ(a): |
2 |
> Hi |
3 |
> |
4 |
> As many of you have already noticed, there are some arches that are quite |
5 |
> slow on stabilizations. This leads to deprecated stabilizations e.g a |
6 |
> package is stabilized after 60 days which makes that version of |
7 |
> the specific package obsolete and not worth to stabilize anymore. |
8 |
> |
9 |
> I would suggest to introduce a new rule where a stabilization bug may close |
10 |
> after 30 days. Arches that fail to stabilize it within this timeframe |
11 |
> they will simply don't have this package stable for them. |
12 |
> |
13 |
> Moreover, slow arches introduce another problem as well. If a package is |
14 |
> marked stabled for their arch, but this package is quite old, and they fail to |
15 |
> stabilize a new version, we ( as maintainers ) can't drop the very old |
16 |
> ( and obsolete ) version of this package because we somehow will break |
17 |
> the stable tree for these arches. How should we act in this case? |
18 |
> Keep the old version around forever just to say that "hey, they do have |
19 |
> a stable version for our exotic arch". |
20 |
> |
21 |
> Whilst I do understand that these arches are understaffed and they can't keep |
22 |
> up with the increased stabilization load like x86/amd64 do, I still |
23 |
> think that slow stabilization leads to an obsolete stable tree which I |
24 |
> doesn't make sense to me after all. |
25 |
> |
26 |
> Thoughts? |
27 |
|
28 |
+1. |
29 |
The period of waiting might be extended to 60 days. |
30 |
|
31 |
This period should be counted from the first ignored stabilization request. |
32 |
Stabilizations of some packages are filed e.g. once per month and some |
33 |
architectures don't manage to stabilize older versions before stabilization |
34 |
requests of new versions. |
35 |
|
36 |
-- |
37 |
Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis |