| 1 |
On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 11:53 PM, Peter Stuge <peter@×××××.se> wrote: |
| 2 |
> Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 3 |
>> It seems like the simplest solution in these cases is to just have |
| 4 |
>> them focus on @system packages for the stable tree, and let users |
| 5 |
>> deal with more breakage outside of that set |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> Why not make stable completely optional for arch teams? |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
Stable already is completely optional for the arch teams, and that is |
| 11 |
why we have concerns over stable requests taking forever on minor |
| 12 |
archs in the first place. If the package wasn't marked as stable in |
| 13 |
the first place the maintainer could just drop old versions anytime |
| 14 |
they saw fit, but in the cases that cause problems the arch team |
| 15 |
exercises their option to stabilize something, and then they also |
| 16 |
exercise their option to not stabilize something newer. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
Rich |
Archives