| 1 |
Robert Cernansky wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Fri, 05 Jan 2007 07:33:31 -0700 Steve Dibb <beandog@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
>> Andrey Gerasimenko wrote: |
| 6 |
>> |
| 7 |
>>> On Fri, 05 Jan 2007 11:49:30 +0300, Robert Cernansky |
| 8 |
>>> <hslists2@××××××.sk> wrote: |
| 9 |
>>> |
| 10 |
>>> |
| 11 |
>>>> On Thu, 04 Jan 2007 13:49:48 -0700 Steve Dibb <beandog@g.o> wrote: |
| 12 |
>>>> |
| 13 |
>>>>> Most stuff doesnt get marked stable mostly because there aren't |
| 14 |
>>>>> any stable requests. |
| 15 |
>>>>> |
| 16 |
>>>> Stabilisation bug it not a requirement. |
| 17 |
>>>> |
| 18 |
>> Actually, everything I said in that last email was a little off. |
| 19 |
>> Stabilization bugs are required because ultimately it is the |
| 20 |
>> architecture team that is going to mark it stable, not the |
| 21 |
>> developer. There are some cases where things can go directly stable |
| 22 |
>> (such as security vulnerabilities), but those are the exception and |
| 23 |
>> not the rule. |
| 24 |
>> |
| 25 |
>> So if you want something stable, do all the checks, file a bug, and |
| 26 |
>> copy all the arches that it applies to. You can see which ones use |
| 27 |
>> it on http://packages.gentoo.org/ |
| 28 |
>> |
| 29 |
> |
| 30 |
> I perfectly agree with your previous e-mail where you sayng that "it's |
| 31 |
> a notice telling the developers that hey, someone wants it marked |
| 32 |
> stable." And I agree that stabilisation bugs are helping developers |
| 33 |
> and everybody should write it when appropriate. But it should not be |
| 34 |
> a requirement. |
| 35 |
> |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
Thanks for dragging this out Robert, because I again need to make a |
| 38 |
correction. |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
AFAIK, there is no policy saying that there's a requirement for there to |
| 41 |
be a stablization bug. However, since it is the architecture team's |
| 42 |
final decision, filing bugs is just the preferred way of notifying many |
| 43 |
at once. |
| 44 |
|
| 45 |
> In documentation [1] it is not mentioned a stabilisation bug. Is there |
| 46 |
> any other documentation specific for architecture team that have |
| 47 |
> higher priorty? |
| 48 |
> |
| 49 |
|
| 50 |
Yah, that doc doesn't really go into detail other than saying if the |
| 51 |
maintainer thinks it's okay to mark stable. Again, strictly speaking |
| 52 |
that is correct, since the maintainer should check off if the ebuild is |
| 53 |
okay to mark stable, and then the arches decide if they want to do it or |
| 54 |
not. |
| 55 |
|
| 56 |
The doc doesn't go into much detail. It looks like there's no real |
| 57 |
strict policy on the matter, and the de facto way of doing things has |
| 58 |
worked pretty well besides that. :) |
| 59 |
|
| 60 |
Steve |
| 61 |
-- |
| 62 |
gentoo-user@g.o mailing list |
Archives