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--