| 1 |
On Wed, 2006-05-31 at 18:20 -0400, Ned Ludd wrote: |
| 2 |
> Things can be fast tracked if it's better for the overall health of the |
| 3 |
> tree. The 30 thing is just a general guideline and more so before we |
| 4 |
> had any arch teams/ATs/etc... Now that we have arch teams the QA/stable |
| 5 |
> process has been highly improved. |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> On Wed, 2006-05-31 at 14:49 -0500, Paul Varner wrote: |
| 8 |
> > If portage-2.1 is requested to be marked stable before then, we need to |
| 9 |
> > also make the same request for gentoolkit, so that we don't break it. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
I don't think that we need to fast track marking gentoolkit-0.2.2 stable |
| 12 |
at this point. However, as my last paragraph states, if portage-2.1 is |
| 13 |
going to go stable before then, we should then fast track gentoolkit. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
Regards, |
| 16 |
Paul |
| 17 |
-- |
| 18 |
gentoo-portage-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives