From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org)
by nuthatch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43)
id 1EGLYE-0001fh-DY
for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Fri, 16 Sep 2005 19:07:11 +0000
Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with SMTP id j8GJ1IgR014433;
Fri, 16 Sep 2005 19:01:18 GMT
Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [134.68.220.30])
by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id j8GIx5VU017002
for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Fri, 16 Sep 2005 18:59:05 GMT
Received: from [65.115.53.39] (helo=[192.168.10.54])
by smtp.gentoo.org with esmtpa (Exim 4.43)
id 1EGLVM-0004tS-A5
for gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org; Fri, 16 Sep 2005 19:04:12 +0000
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] first council meeting
From: Daniel Ostrow <dostrow@gentoo.org>
To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
In-Reply-To: <200509162048.58261.pauldv@gentoo.org>
References: <20050915205149.GB22270@vino.zko.hp.com>
<200509161942.37010.pauldv@gentoo.org>
<20050916193804.78cc3627@snowdrop.home>
<200509162048.58261.pauldv@gentoo.org>
Content-Type: text/plain
Organization: The Gentoo Foundation
Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2005 15:00:17 -0400
Message-Id: <1126897217.7832.49.camel@Memoria.anyarch.net>
Precedence: bulk
List-Post: <mailto:gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gentoo-dev+help@gentoo.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+unsubscribe@gentoo.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+subscribe@gentoo.org>
List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail <gentoo-dev.gentoo.org>
X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org
Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Evolution 2.2.3
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Archives-Salt: a69c688f-3e3c-47f2-b481-1618020f229f
X-Archives-Hash: 732c0499f2ebdaeae6f6c7cf8dc59743
On Fri, 2005-09-16 at 20:48 +0200, Paul de Vrieze wrote:
> On Friday 16 September 2005 20:38, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 19:42:36 +0200 Paul de Vrieze <pauldv@gentoo.org>
> >
> > wrote:
> > | Ok, I do think that we will need a way for the maintainer to indicate
> > | that the package is stable. I'd be happy to leave stabilizing out of
> > | my hands, but I wouldn't want my packages to be stabilized before I
> > | deem it stable.
> >
> > Take it out of package.mask and leave it for thirty (package-dependent)
> > days. If there is a pressing (eg security) reason for it to go to
> > stable sooner than would normally be expected, file a bug and Cc: the
> > relevant arch teams.
>
> I was thinking more like signalling that it shouldn't be stable yet, but
> shouldn't be masked either.
>
> Paul
Here's my 2 cents on this...the general rule of thumb for an arch
stabilizing a package has been 30 days in ~ with no open bugs. As far as
I am concerned this mean that if a package maintainer does not want a
package to follow these rules then indicating such is as easy as opening
a bug against the package assigned to him/herself stating so and mark it
for all arch's. That way when the arch team goes to look for bugs (and
we are all doing this right???) before marking a package stable they
will see the bug and know not to.
Hell the bug can be as simple as "Don't mark this package stable yet for
reasons x, y and z." Doing it this way has the added advantage of
letting arch maintainers know about the reasons why the package
shouldn't be marked stable so they know what they are getting into by
going ahead of the package maintainer.
Personally I like this outlook a lot better then the maint ~maint option
because it provides information and fits into present policy. All in all
it really isn't that hard to open a bug.
If the package is truly not stable then it should really be moved back
into p.mask anyway.
--
Daniel Ostrow
Gentoo Foundation Board of Trustees
Gentoo/{PPC,PPC64,DevRel}
dostrow@gentoo.org
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list