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 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1I0TZx-0007uY-Rb for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Tue, 19 Jun 2007 02:36:26 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.0/8.14.0) with SMTP id l5J2ZIsI031402; Tue, 19 Jun 2007 02:35:18 GMT Received: from smtp-out.neti.ee (smtp-out.neti.ee [194.126.126.41]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.0/8.14.0) with ESMTP id l5J2XT58029088 for ; Tue, 19 Jun 2007 02:33:29 GMT Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by MXR-4.estpak.ee (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B84622F1CA for ; Tue, 19 Jun 2007 05:33:29 +0300 (EEST) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new-2.4.3 (20060930) (Debian) at neti.ee Received: from smtp-out.neti.ee ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (MXR-2.estpak.ee [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FKtREnDFvm3d for ; Tue, 19 Jun 2007 05:33:27 +0300 (EEST) Received: from Relayhost1.neti.ee (Relayhost1 [88.196.174.141]) by MXR-4.estpak.ee (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D01522F108 for ; Tue, 19 Jun 2007 05:33:27 +0300 (EEST) Subject: [gentoo-dev] Determining ebuild stability and the 30 day suggestion (was: QA issue: No stable skype in Tree) From: Mart Raudsepp To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org In-Reply-To: <1182191680.14981.35.camel@workbox.quova.com> References: <46701D06.5080302@gentoo.org> <200706142041.37787.abhay.ilugd@gmail.com> <4671B6F8.9070507@gentoo.org> <200706151001.17924.abhay.ilugd@gmail.com> <467274D2.3080101@gentoo.org> <46728E08.8020200@gentoo.org> <4672E734.60703@thefreemanclan.net> <1182191680.14981.35.camel@workbox.quova.com> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-O1eAqQONx7D3OO/aOC5Y" Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 05:32:55 +0300 Message-Id: <1182220375.8229.16.camel@localhost> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.10.1 X-Archives-Salt: 2876877f-844c-4dde-98d0-043c7fcb6cf5 X-Archives-Hash: c0bcec153374bb542c13f81a684e0170 --=-O1eAqQONx7D3OO/aOC5Y Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hey, On E, 2007-06-18 at 11:34 -0700, Chris Gianelloni wrote: > Also, remember that stabilization is *supposed* to be about the > stabilization of the *ebuild* and not the *package* itself.=20 This sentence made me personally start looking at the policy in a different way as far as stabilization and waiting for a set amount of days is concerned. Does this mean that, when for example there are pure bug fix releases in GNOME packages with no ebuild changes whatsoever, then we can consider, without hesitation so much, to ask stabilization of these much sooner than 30 days? Or the new version just has updated translations, which is cool too (unless it's a very long building package) to get into the hands of our world-wide users earlier with no practical chance of breakage. Right now it is a rare exception to ask stabilization earlier than 30 days, but should we do that more often for cases like I made an example of (upstream following a strict bug-fixes/translations only rule as well for the versions in question)? --=20 Mart Raudsepp Gentoo Developer Mail: leio@gentoo.org Weblog: http://planet.gentoo.org/developers/leio --=-O1eAqQONx7D3OO/aOC5Y Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.4 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQBGd0BXkeYb6olFHJcRAteoAKCDB/gGeKmV0MFGhr4+nHNGcFTA1wCfR3G5 N3KeTt05k1JgNyIUP2jroPI= =Fy6X -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-O1eAqQONx7D3OO/aOC5Y-- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list