1 |
Jeroen Roovers wrote: |
2 |
> Dear ebuild maintainers, |
3 |
> |
4 |
> |
5 |
> thirty days is the norm for the minimal period between an ebuilds last |
6 |
> non-keywording change while in the tree and the usual call for |
7 |
> stabilisation. If you cannot find a pressing reason to push |
8 |
> stabilisation forward, then don't ask. In the last few days I have seen |
9 |
> several early calls for stabilisation (bugs #217148, #217845, #217841 |
10 |
> and #217839 for instance) where no adequate reason was given, in my |
11 |
> opinion. |
12 |
|
13 |
Given that 3 of the 4 are from one person, I wouldn't draw broad |
14 |
conclusion from this. |
15 |
|
16 |
> A good reason might be an important fix of a severe bug, a fix for a |
17 |
> build problem that couldn't be applied to a stable version but had to |
18 |
> go into an ebuild revision, or a version/revision that fixes a security |
19 |
> problem. |
20 |
> |
21 |
> On the other hand, maybe these early stabilisation bug reports are a |
22 |
> sign of the times and we need to shorten the normal thirty day period, |
23 |
> become even more of a cutting edge distro - or at least discuss the |
24 |
> options. |
25 |
|
26 |
I'd say leave the current norm and smack the misbehaving maintainers :) |
27 |
|
28 |
Caster |
29 |
-- |
30 |
gentoo-dev@l.g.o mailing list |