Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: William Hubbs <williamh@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: revisiting our stabilization policy
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2014 02:46:20
Message-Id: 20140115024604.GA3952@laptop.home
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: revisiting our stabilization policy by Michael Orlitzky
1 On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 09:21:51PM -0500, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
2 > On 01/14/2014 09:09 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
3 > >
4 > > After the package has been sitting in ~arch for 90 days with an open
5 > > stable request with no blockers that the arch team has not taken any
6 > > action on. We are not talking about randomly yanking package versions,
7 > > just doing something when arch teams are not responsive, and it seems
8 > > that the cleanest thing to do would be to remove the old versions.
9 > >
10 >
11 > People running stable value... stability. I would much rather wait for
12 > the arch teams to get un-busy than to be forced to upgrade to something
13 > untested. Why would I care if it takes another month? Strictly from a
14 > user's perspective. I don't, unless I do, in which case I know that I
15 > do, and I could just keyword the thing if I wanted to.
17 s/month/year/
19 Do you feel the same way then? I have heard of stabilizations taking
20 this long before. I just had to try to pick something reasonable for the
21 discussion.
23 I suppose a compromise would be, instead of removing the old versions,
24 move them back to ~arch for a month then remove them, but that still
25 implies action on your part.
27 William


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


Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: revisiting our stabilization policy Christopher Head <chead@×××××.ca>