| 1 |
All, I'm responding to this particular message because I think there is |
| 2 |
another sub-thread we should think about. |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 09:16:03PM +0800, Ben de Groot wrote: |
| 5 |
> On 29 August 2013 14:09, Michael Weber <xmw@g.o> wrote: |
| 6 |
> > On 08/28/2013 01:15 PM, Markos Chandras wrote: |
| 7 |
> >> The feedback on the original question was mostly positive. |
| 8 |
> >> Most people agree that the long stabilization queues for these |
| 9 |
> >> architectures create problems |
| 10 |
> >> for maintainers wishing to drop old versions. |
| 11 |
> > Is this the only motivation? Drop all the effort that has been put into |
| 12 |
> > stabilization work on minor arches just for some impatient maintainers? |
| 13 |
> > |
| 14 |
> > Keywording/Stabilization is a process we all agreed on joining, so live |
| 15 |
> > with it. |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> Minor arches holding up GLSAs and removal of vulnerable stable ebuilds |
| 18 |
> for 3 months or more is *not* acceptable, and not something I agreed |
| 19 |
> to when joining... |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> If they can't even do security stabilizations in a reasonable |
| 22 |
> timeframe, they have no business being considered stable arches. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
In the past, I have had arch teams refuse to stabilize a newer version |
| 25 |
of a package after an older version is stable unless a user of the arch |
| 26 |
wants the new version to be stabilized, thus forcing older versions to be |
| 27 |
kept around for their stable users. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
IMO if an arch team does this, maintainers should be able to move |
| 30 |
the affected package to ~ on that arch, or maybe even drop that arch's |
| 31 |
keyword entirely. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
William |
Archives