| 1 |
On Sun, 3 Feb 2013 18:51:45 +0100 |
| 2 |
Alex Schuster <wonko@×××××××××.org> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> Alan McKinnon writes: |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
> > - news item |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> There is one, from 2013-01-23, ending with 'Apologies if this news |
| 9 |
> came too late for you.' |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> Okay, if that one came a little earlier, I would have been fine. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
I would have too. IMO, given the difficulties of putting in automagic |
| 14 |
checks and/or failures that would work for everyone, news items are the |
| 15 |
best way to handle info like this. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
I'm a bit concerned that there wasn't one earlier for udev-197-r*. |
| 18 |
AFAICT from the changelog, udev-197.ebuild hit the tree on 9 January, |
| 19 |
and the stabilization bug* for a later revision was filed on 16 |
| 20 |
January. The stabilization request makes it clear devs should not |
| 21 |
rush and should report any further issues they run across, yet |
| 22 |
udev-197-r3 was stabilized just a few days later, at which point stable |
| 23 |
users started hitting the issues. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
I'm not clear on why udev-197-r* needed stabilization without having |
| 26 |
~arch keywords for a period. I rely on the kindness of ~arch testers |
| 27 |
who are willing to encounter the issues I later read about in a news |
| 28 |
item before an ebuild is stabilized. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
* https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=452556 |
Archives