| 1 |
On 03/10/2013 07:04 PM, Jeroen Roovers wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Sun, 3 Mar 2013 12:44:18 +0100 |
| 3 |
> Tomáš Chvátal <tomas.chvatal@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
>> If I remember correctly the damn rule is to put it for 30 days into |
| 6 |
>> testing, and as you said there was no previous version on arm so users |
| 7 |
>> could've reported some issues, i agree that sometimes you have to |
| 8 |
>> ignore the rules to really fix stable, but was this such case for |
| 9 |
>> sure? |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> I've done straight to stable keywording _many_ times. The rationale is |
| 12 |
> that with no previous version stable for a particular architecture, |
| 13 |
> there really are no users who could see _regressions_, hence waiting |
| 14 |
> the nominal thirty days is meaningless in this case. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> jer |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
another note: |
| 21 |
I was told a while back (I might still have it in irc logs), that 30 |
| 22 |
days is NOT a rule. It's common sense, but in the end the maintainer |
| 23 |
decides when to request stabilization, no one else. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
Blame people if they break something, not if they ignore soft policies. |
Archives