1 |
On 29 August 2013 14:16, Ben de Groot <yngwin@g.o> wrote: |
2 |
> On 29 August 2013 14:09, Michael Weber <xmw@g.o> wrote: |
3 |
>> On 08/28/2013 01:15 PM, Markos Chandras wrote: |
4 |
>>> The feedback on the original question was mostly positive. |
5 |
>>> Most people agree that the long stabilization queues for these |
6 |
>>> architectures create problems |
7 |
>>> for maintainers wishing to drop old versions. |
8 |
>> Is this the only motivation? Drop all the effort that has been put into |
9 |
>> stabilization work on minor arches just for some impatient maintainers? |
10 |
>> |
11 |
>> Keywording/Stabilization is a process we all agreed on joining, so live |
12 |
>> with it. |
13 |
> |
14 |
> Minor arches holding up GLSAs and removal of vulnerable stable ebuilds |
15 |
> for 3 months or more is *not* acceptable, and not something I agreed |
16 |
> to when joining... |
17 |
> |
18 |
> If they can't even do security stabilizations in a reasonable |
19 |
> timeframe, they have no business being considered stable arches. |
20 |
> |
21 |
> -- |
22 |
> Cheers, |
23 |
> |
24 |
> Ben | yngwin |
25 |
> Gentoo developer |
26 |
> |
27 |
|
28 |
I don't understand why moving an arch to ~testing is considered such |
29 |
an insult by their members and |
30 |
they react like this. It works great for MIPS, it can work great for |
31 |
the others too. |
32 |
|
33 |
-- |
34 |
Regards, |
35 |
Markos Chandras - Gentoo Linux Developer |
36 |
http://dev.gentoo.org/~hwoarang |