From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 5371 invoked by uid 1002); 13 Apr 2003 22:25:23 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gentoo-dev-help@gentoo.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Received: (qmail 19289 invoked from network); 13 Apr 2003 22:25:23 -0000 From: Brad Laue Reply-To: brad@brad-x.com To: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Content-Type: text/plain Organization: brad-x.com Message-Id: <1050272714.30123.5.camel@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.3.1 (Preview Release) Date: 13 Apr 2003 18:25:15 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [gentoo-dev] Is there a process for marking ebuilds stable? X-Archives-Salt: adb68ecc-98df-4301-947f-0d54ce6b32e6 X-Archives-Hash: f5bce0d165afb92c775b0d7017a55302 Given the increasing size of the portage tree I'm becoming concerned about the rate at which ebuilds move from the unstable ~arch keyword to the stable one. Has a formalized process been discussed for this? The first thing that comes to mind is a set of tinderboxes designed to build packages with predictable flags sending reports to each ebuild maintainer. The second is more practical and within reach; advocacy of stable.gentoo.org, and a policy of accepting a package as stable when five or more users have vouched for it and two weeks have passed without a bug report. These are rough ideas, I'd love to hear some input on them. Any thoughts? -- // -- http://www.BRAD-X.com/ -- // -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list