From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org)
	by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <gentoo-dev+bounces-38291-garchives=archives.gentoo.org@lists.gentoo.org>)
	id 1N4die-0006e2-UT
	for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sun, 01 Nov 2009 16:55:57 +0000
Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id E79A3E0881;
	Sun,  1 Nov 2009 16:55:55 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from smtp-out.neti.ee (smtp-out.neti.ee [194.126.126.36])
	by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB6A3E0881
	for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Sun,  1 Nov 2009 16:55:55 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by relay215.estpak.ee (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C52A231756F
	for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Sun,  1 Nov 2009 18:55:54 +0200 (EET)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at estpak.ee
Received: from smtp-out.neti.ee ([127.0.0.1])
	by localhost (relay215.estpak.ee [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id 6Pwc7fo6GkW9 for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>;
	Sun,  1 Nov 2009 18:55:52 +0200 (EET)
Received: from NETI-Relayhost2.estpak.ee (neti-relayhost2.estpak.ee [88.196.174.199])
	by relay215.estpak.ee (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6007E2317518
	for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Sun,  1 Nov 2009 18:55:52 +0200 (EET)
X-SMTP-Auth-NETI-Businesmail: no
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Improve policy of stabilizations
From: Mart Raudsepp <leio@gentoo.org>
To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
In-Reply-To: <200911011736.38401.Arfrever@gentoo.org>
References: <200911011736.38401.Arfrever@gentoo.org>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-hi/qDPd66+nAwxRrTG+u"
Date: Sun, 01 Nov 2009 18:55:29 +0200
Message-Id: <1257094529.29790.2.camel@localhost>
Precedence: bulk
List-Post: <mailto:gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gentoo-dev+help@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+unsubscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+subscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail <gentoo-dev.gentoo.org>
X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Evolution 2.22.3.1 
X-Archives-Salt: 249f3465-6457-47ce-906a-32d9e2fdcba1
X-Archives-Hash: c9faf193bf0d55076c92b5a955d49017


--=-hi/qDPd66+nAwxRrTG+u
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Sun, 2009-11-01 at 17:36 +0100, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis
wrote:
> Some packages have new releases more than once a month and sometimes it's=
 reasonable
> to not skip stabilization of any version. Given version of a package is u=
sually no
> longer tested by users after release of a newer version, so I suggest the=
 following
> change to the policy of stabilizations:
> Stabilization of given version of a package can be requested if this vers=
ion has been
> in the tree for at least 10 days and a newer version of this package has =
been added
> to the tree.

I am not aware of there being a 30 day policy, and have always
considered it as a guideline, not policy. If the maintainer sees that 10
days is good for the package sometimes, I see no problem with it. Arch
teams might kindly request explanations of why the quicker
stabilization, but I don't represent any myself, but in case of quicker
stabilization of package I maintain myself I try to state in the
STABLEREQ bug why the quicker stabilization.

Is it stated in any documentation that 30 days is a policy?

--=20
Mart Raudsepp
Gentoo Developer
Mail: leio@gentoo.org
Weblog: http://planet.gentoo.org/developers/leio

--=-hi/qDPd66+nAwxRrTG+u
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc
Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.8 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEABECAAYFAkrtvYEACgkQkeYb6olFHJdD6QCg3B9vYq5TDhhgi1r9JJYUa3GH
+HcAoOFYurOiLjMBJZp/3sEoGLvL3akZ
=VxrI
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--=-hi/qDPd66+nAwxRrTG+u--