| 1 |
Hey, |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
On E, 2007-06-18 at 11:34 -0700, Chris Gianelloni wrote: |
| 4 |
> Also, remember that stabilization is *supposed* to be about the |
| 5 |
> stabilization of the *ebuild* and not the *package* itself. |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
This sentence made me personally start looking at the policy in a |
| 8 |
different way as far as stabilization and waiting for a set amount of |
| 9 |
days is concerned. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
Does this mean that, when for example there are pure bug fix releases in |
| 12 |
GNOME packages with no ebuild changes whatsoever, then we can consider, |
| 13 |
without hesitation so much, to ask stabilization of these much sooner |
| 14 |
than 30 days? Or the new version just has updated translations, which is |
| 15 |
cool too (unless it's a very long building package) to get into the |
| 16 |
hands of our world-wide users earlier with no practical chance of |
| 17 |
breakage. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
Right now it is a rare exception to ask stabilization earlier than 30 |
| 20 |
days, but should we do that more often for cases like I made an example |
| 21 |
of (upstream following a strict bug-fixes/translations only rule as well |
| 22 |
for the versions in question)? |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
-- |
| 26 |
Mart Raudsepp |
| 27 |
Gentoo Developer |
| 28 |
Mail: leio@g.o |
| 29 |
Weblog: http://planet.gentoo.org/developers/leio |
Archives