| 1 |
Chris Gianelloni wrote: |
| 2 |
>> The stabilization idea sounds good and it could free maintainers from |
| 3 |
>> filing similar bugs over and over ; but wouldn't this be more and harder |
| 4 |
>> work for arch teams?. For example, they should carefully track the |
| 5 |
>> history of all the packages to know when and if they should stabilize it |
| 6 |
>> yet. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> Huh? |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> It's simple. The maintainer says "stabilize foo-1.2-r1" which gives a |
| 11 |
> minimum level that all arches should be using. If foo-1.2-r2 comes out, |
| 12 |
> it is up to the arch team to decide if/when to stabilize it, *unless* |
| 13 |
> the maintainer requests a newer version/revision. Basically, the |
| 14 |
> maintainer sets the minimum level they would like stable. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
Yeah, but is there no way for whatever the maintainer stabilises on their |
| 17 |
arch to be what everyone else should stabilise, without "filing similar |
| 18 |
bugs over and over"? (ie automation of this bit.) |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
-- |
| 22 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives