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. |
16 |
|
17 |
s/month/year/ |
18 |
|
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. |
22 |
|
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. |
26 |
|
27 |
William |