| 1 |
On 21/08/2013 20:31, Tom Wijsman wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Wed, 21 Aug 2013 20:13:00 +1000 |
| 3 |
> Michael Palimaka <kensington@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
>> For those not familiar with imlate, please note that these numbers |
| 6 |
>> include packages that have never been stabilised. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> True, this brings up two questions: |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> 1. How do we filter out those that were never stabilized? |
| 11 |
I don't see any option, perhaps imlate could use that improvement. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> 2. How much of those actually don't need stabilization? How much do? |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
Someone said to me once "everything in ~arch is a candidate for |
| 17 |
stabilisation. if it should never be stabilised, it shouldn't be in the |
| 18 |
tree." |
| 19 |
I'm not sure if I agree with that statement or not, but I suspect most |
| 20 |
things in the tree that have never been stabilised are that way simply |
| 21 |
because nobody every asked. There really is a large number of packages |
| 22 |
just rotting in ~arch though. |
Archives