| 1 |
Chris Gianelloni wrote: |
| 2 |
>> I'd say no bugs, 30 days, passes internal tests, being run by users => |
| 3 |
>> stablise, for the majority of packages (obviously, there may be some |
| 4 |
>> exceptions...). |
| 5 |
>> |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> Luckily, you're not making the call. ;] |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> The "majority" of packages are also the ones that need more extensive |
| 10 |
> testing. Sure, we could probably stabilize a bunch of the fringe |
| 11 |
> packages that hardly anyone uses and it wouldn't affect anything. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
That's actually how I read the first email, was that it's really the |
| 14 |
majority of the _minor_ packages that get completely neglected, and just |
| 15 |
sits in the tree for months or years marked unstable because nobody |
| 16 |
cares. The people that use it have marked it ~arch a long time ago in |
| 17 |
their package.keywords because they know it works just fine. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
THAT stuff I wouldn't mind going through and just bumping to stable |
| 20 |
myself. They don't need extensive testing, they don't need patches, |
| 21 |
they work, and have been working, and just need arches flagged and |
| 22 |
versions bumped. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
But, nobody likes doing the small stuff, and I can't blame them. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Steve |
| 27 |
-- |
| 28 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives