Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Pacho Ramos <pacho@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: making the stable tree more up-to-date
Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2011 17:26:59
Message-Id: 1322155571.6162.1.camel@belkin4
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: making the stable tree more up-to-date by Rich Freeman
El jue, 24-11-2011 a las 12:12 -0500, Rich Freeman escribió:
> On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 11:35 AM, Ian Stakenvicius <axs@g.o> wrote: > > .should ~arch packages with no maintainer really be moved to stable?* > > > > (* assuming no other outside forces, like it's a dep of something else > > that needs to go stable) > > I support stabilizing bug-free newer versions of maintainer-needed > packages that already have stable versions. I'm not sure I'd extend > that to stabilizing packages that have no stable versions already. >
I agree with stabling newer version but NOT to stable maintainer-needed packages that has no stable version currently :)
> I see getting stable users on the ~arch version as a win-win since it > means less maintenance of older version (without a maintainer), and > will likely give the stable user a more stable experience in reality > than what they already have. >
I have also seen some maintainer-needed packages need to get a newer version stable to fix some old opened bugs
> Those benefits don't exist for a package that has no stable versions > to begin with. > > Rich > >


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