Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Sergey Popov <pinkbyte@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: stabilization policies
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2013 07:56:37
Message-Id: 52147248.1010105@gentoo.org
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: stabilization policies by Tom Wijsman
1 20.08.2013 23:48, Tom Wijsman пишет:
2 > Yes, +1; last time this came up on chat, I asked whether it would be a
3 > nice idea to have something between stable and ~, what you propose
4 > sounds similar and might make sense. Though, on the other hand, doing
5 > it this way we don't get the advantages that filing bugs give; if we
6 > do it this way, I'd assume we need some other implementation to
7 > cover that (for things like the "depends on", "blocks", ... fields)...
8
9 Why we should bring new half-stable, half-testing keyword for this? I
10 think that this is no way to go. We should improve current situation
11 with arches by some other ways(e.g., recruiting people). Maybe drop some
12 damn-bad understaffed arches to unstable only(i do not point finger on
13 anyone, they know, who they are... :-))
14
15 --
16 Best regards, Sergey Popov
17 Gentoo developer
18 Gentoo Desktop Effects project lead
19 Gentoo Qt project lead
20 Gentoo Proxy maintainers project lead

Attachments

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

Replies

Subject Author
[gentoo-dev] Re: rfc: stabilization policies Michael Palimaka <kensington@g.o>
Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: stabilization policies Tom Wijsman <TomWij@g.o>