| 1 |
On 10/11/2011 08:38 AM, Peter Volkov wrote: |
| 2 |
> В Вск, 09/10/2011 в 22:28 +0000, Duncan пишет: |
| 3 |
>> Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn posted on Sun, 09 Oct 2011 18:37:59 +0200 as |
| 4 |
>> excerpted: |
| 5 |
>> |
| 6 |
>>> Duncan schrieb: |
| 7 |
>>>> Libpng isn't held up that way, while the package still gets its 30 day |
| 8 |
>>>> masking last-rites. No policy broken; no maintainer toes stepped on as |
| 9 |
>>>> a result of the broken policy. No more nasty threads about (this) |
| 10 |
>>>> broken policy and unhappy maintainers as a result! =:^) |
| 11 |
>>> |
| 12 |
>>> Actually removing a package that doesn't violate any (written) rules |
| 13 |
>>> without maintainer consensus could be considered a violation of policy |
| 14 |
>>> too. |
| 15 |
>>> |
| 16 |
>>> http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/devrel/recruiters/mentor.xml Respect |
| 17 |
>>> existing maintainers: |
| 18 |
>>> Never commit when someone else has clear ownership. Never commit on |
| 19 |
>>> things with unclear ownership until you've tried to clear it up. |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> Samuli pretends here to act as a part of QA team (although he is not). |
| 22 |
> Actually even whiteboard of stabilization bug tells #at _earliest_ 17 |
| 23 |
> Oct" and thus there is really no sign for rush. This is the case where |
| 24 |
> QA should voice and either explain why fast stabilization of libpng is |
| 25 |
> so important or stop policy breakage. That said it became really common |
| 26 |
> to break our own policies (with no attempts to amend policy). |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
(sorry for replying to same mail again, but I've missed the baseless |
| 29 |
claim for fast stabilization) |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
no such thing, as 17 Oct is 30 day from when libpng-1.5 was released to |
| 32 |
~arch -- notice it was me who added the whiteboard status too, so arches |
| 33 |
DON'T stabilize it fast. |
Archives