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 ) id 1RTd4b-0006Gy-H5 for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Thu, 24 Nov 2011 17:26:59 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 23C1C21C08A; Thu, 24 Nov 2011 17:26:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2418C21C051 for ; Thu, 24 Nov 2011 17:26:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.1.204] (40.51.217.87.dynamic.jazztel.es [87.217.51.40]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: pacho) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0494F1B4020 for ; Thu, 24 Nov 2011 17:26:15 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: making the stable tree more up-to-date From: Pacho Ramos To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org In-Reply-To: References: <4ECA0EA3.8020407@gentoo.org> <20111123152036.TA0db695.tv@veller.net> <4ECE6002.5070109@gentoo.org> <4ECE725F.30307@gentoo.org> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-Uk4pYOZZfZGIYxLdCepu" Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2011 18:26:11 +0100 Message-ID: <1322155571.6162.1.camel@belkin4> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.32.3 X-Archives-Salt: 8102201f-9a81-4f55-add1-2d3453bc89d9 X-Archives-Hash: fc1aed022db57b5d68903a8407bfcfee --=-Uk4pYOZZfZGIYxLdCepu Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable El jue, 24-11-2011 a las 12:12 -0500, Rich Freeman escribi=C3=B3: > On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 11:35 AM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote= : > > .should ~arch packages with no maintainer really be moved to stable?* > > > > (* assuming no other outside forces, like it's a dep of something else > > that needs to go stable) >=20 > I support stabilizing bug-free newer versions of maintainer-needed > packages that already have stable versions. I'm not sure I'd extend > that to stabilizing packages that have no stable versions already. >=20 I agree with stabling newer version but NOT to stable maintainer-needed packages that has no stable version currently :) > I see getting stable users on the ~arch version as a win-win since it > means less maintenance of older version (without a maintainer), and > will likely give the stable user a more stable experience in reality > than what they already have. >=20 I have also seen some maintainer-needed packages need to get a newer version stable to fix some old opened bugs=20 > Those benefits don't exist for a package that has no stable versions > to begin with. >=20 > Rich >=20 >=20 --=-Uk4pYOZZfZGIYxLdCepu Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (GNU/Linux) iEYEABECAAYFAk7OfjMACgkQCaWpQKGI+9SpmQCfRxRJEQL487RAIhxeuFYL6TA+ /9UAn3YBFJq1yoOLQysN2epWTDCTb8DI =zaAF -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-Uk4pYOZZfZGIYxLdCepu--