Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Mike Frysinger <vapier@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] first council meeting
Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2005 21:02:12
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] first council meeting by Ciaran McCreesh
1 On Friday 16 September 2005 04:44 pm, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
2 > On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 16:33:13 -0400 Mike Frysinger <vapier@g.o>
3 >
4 > wrote:
5 > | ok, e17 packages dont count here. however, your hardcore view i
6 > | still dont buy. how about the baselayout-1.9.x -> baselayout-1.11.x
7 > | stabilization process ? are you telling me that arch teams should
8 > | have had the power to move those into stable without talking to the
9 > | maintainer ? baselayout may be a core package, but if you continue
10 > | with your hard rule here, then it doesnt matter.
11 >
12 > I'm saying that arch teams should be allowed to mark it stable if they
13 > think it's appropriate. Not that it must be moved to stable after $x
14 > days, but that it can be at the arch team's discretion. And any arch
15 > team which is silly enough to mark a broken baselayout stable has far
16 > bigger problems anyway...
18 baselayout is an example, any package can be used here (although not many are
19 as critical)
21 i'm saying that the maintainer may have a certain idea of when the package is
22 ready for stable (a target feature set, working out certain quirks, etc...).
23 your current hard view does not allow for that. for example, i had an arch
24 maintainer one time mark bash-3 stable before base-system was ready for it
25 (readline, baselayout, etc... were going to be stabilized together). i
26 smacked them hard for it, but if we went with this hard view, it would have
27 been perfectly acceptable behavior.
28 -mike
29 --
30 gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list


Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] first council meeting Ciaran McCreesh <ciaranm@g.o>
Re: [gentoo-dev] first council meeting Martin Schlemmer <azarah@××××××××××××.org>