| 1 |
On Sat, Nov 12, 2005 at 02:26:41PM +0900, Jason Stubbs wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Saturday 12 November 2005 08:14, Brian Harring wrote: |
| 3 |
> > Might be worth noting that as of my last sync, .53* and friends are |
| 4 |
> > *still* ~arch. |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> Yep, waiting on approval from the arch teams before going stable. I'll be |
| 7 |
> posting a notification here when it happens as well. While waiting on the |
| 8 |
> arch teams has extended the ~arch time of .53_preX, they've also exposed |
| 9 |
> regressions that wouldn't have been picked up otherwise. Other than |
| 10 |
> documentation concerns, they seem happy with .53 as it stands and I really |
| 11 |
> don't want to jeopardize (that's a weird lookin' word) that. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> How's this for a compromise? Release the current 2.0.53 into stable so that |
| 14 |
> 2.0.51.22-r3 can be dropped out of the picture altogether. Then release a |
| 15 |
> 2.0.53.1 into ~arch with the lib handling fix so that we can get some |
| 16 |
> guaranteed testing time of the patch. In a table: |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> 2.0.53 arch |
| 19 |
> 2.0.53_p1 ~arch |
| 20 |
> 2.0.54_pre1 package.mask |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> After a couple of weeks, move 2.0.53_p1 to stable and drop 2.0.53. |
| 23 |
No major complaints on general idea, dependant on timeframe (outside |
| 24 |
of our control). |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
*cough* that's that funky _p1 you're using there? :) |
| 27 |
~harring |
Archives