| 1 |
On 1/5/07, Robert Cernansky <hslists2@××××××.sk> wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Fri, 05 Jan 2007 07:33:31 -0700 Steve Dibb <beandog@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> > Andrey Gerasimenko wrote: |
| 5 |
> > > On Fri, 05 Jan 2007 11:49:30 +0300, Robert Cernansky |
| 6 |
> > > <hslists2@××××××.sk> wrote: |
| 7 |
> > > |
| 8 |
> > >> On Thu, 04 Jan 2007 13:49:48 -0700 Steve Dibb <beandog@g.o> wrote: |
| 9 |
> > >>> Most stuff doesnt get marked stable mostly because there aren't |
| 10 |
> > >>> any stable requests. |
| 11 |
> > >> |
| 12 |
> > >> Stabilisation bug it not a requirement. |
| 13 |
> > |
| 14 |
> > Actually, everything I said in that last email was a little off. |
| 15 |
> > Stabilization bugs are required because ultimately it is the |
| 16 |
> > architecture team that is going to mark it stable, not the |
| 17 |
> > developer. There are some cases where things can go directly stable |
| 18 |
> > (such as security vulnerabilities), but those are the exception and |
| 19 |
> > not the rule. |
| 20 |
> > |
| 21 |
> > So if you want something stable, do all the checks, file a bug, and |
| 22 |
> > copy all the arches that it applies to. You can see which ones use |
| 23 |
> > it on http://packages.gentoo.org/ |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
> I perfectly agree with your previous e-mail where you sayng that "it's |
| 26 |
> a notice telling the developers that hey, someone wants it marked |
| 27 |
> stable." And I agree that stabilisation bugs are helping developers |
| 28 |
> and everybody should write it when appropriate. But it should not be |
| 29 |
> a requirement. |
| 30 |
> |
| 31 |
> In documentation [1] it is not mentioned a stabilisation bug. Is there |
| 32 |
> any other documentation specific for architecture team that have |
| 33 |
> higher priorty? |
| 34 |
> |
| 35 |
> The exception because of security bug, that you mentioned, allows to |
| 36 |
> ingnore 30 days + no bugs rule, it has nothing to do with |
| 37 |
> stabilisation bugs. |
| 38 |
> |
| 39 |
> 1. http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/devrel/handbook/handbook.xml?part=3&chap=1#doc_chap4 |
| 40 |
> |
| 41 |
> Robert |
| 42 |
|
| 43 |
This is interesting stuff that I didn't know. So if I've been using |
| 44 |
KDevelop 3.3.2 forever |
| 45 |
because 3.3.3, 3.3.4, and 3.3.5 are all ~x86, it's not necessarily |
| 46 |
because 3.3.5 is |
| 47 |
broken, just that nobody's certified it? How does this happen? |
| 48 |
KDevelop is a pretty |
| 49 |
big beast, and I'm only going to use the C/C++ part of it. I'd be |
| 50 |
hesitant to proclaim |
| 51 |
such a thing ready for prime time based on my usage. |
| 52 |
|
| 53 |
What's the best and most helpful thing for me to do? Test 3.3.5 (or |
| 54 |
whatever) as much |
| 55 |
as I can and file a request bug stating what I've tested? Or just use |
| 56 |
it and be damned |
| 57 |
with the ~x86? Something else? |
| 58 |
|
| 59 |
-- |
| 60 |
Kevin O'Gorman, PhD |
| 61 |
-- |
| 62 |
gentoo-user@g.o mailing list |
Archives