From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CADB11381F3 for ; Wed, 21 Aug 2013 08:22:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id D3F11E0C4E; Wed, 21 Aug 2013 08:22:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 04AEAE0AA7 for ; Wed, 21 Aug 2013 08:22:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.66.2] (unknown [194.183.97.12]) (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 D88A933E907 for ; Wed, 21 Aug 2013 08:22:47 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <1377073359.910.16.camel@localhost> Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: rfc: stabilization policies From: Pacho Ramos To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2013 10:22:39 +0200 In-Reply-To: References: <20130820181910.GA2204@linux1> <5213B53F.2060701@gentoo.org> <20130820203717.78bf15ca@googlemail.com> <20130820214823.78c3891c@TOMWIJ-GENTOO> <52147248.1010105@gentoo.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.8.4 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 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Archives-Salt: 50fefe28-edcf-4b4d-8f31-520bd0ad9e28 X-Archives-Hash: 8911aa487e0474b6cc5e8e30fab10ac9 El mié, 21-08-2013 a las 18:08 +1000, Michael Palimaka escribió: > On 21/08/2013 17:54, Sergey Popov wrote: > > Why we should bring new half-stable, half-testing keyword for this? I > > think that this is no way to go. We should improve current situation > > with arches by some other ways(e.g., recruiting people). Maybe drop some > > damn-bad understaffed arches to unstable only(i do not point finger on > > anyone, they know, who they are... :-)) > > > I agree, I don't think adding a new keyword will help. I am also a big > fan of dropping understaffed archs to unstable (or if that is too much, > only keeping stable keywords for important system packages). > I would also like to know concrete cases of packages lacking stable keywords on new enough versions. Maybe some of them comes from packages maintained by understaffed teams and, then, the solution would be different :/ Regarding the kernel... well, I don't think having a 3.8.x kernel as stable one is so old, what are current kernel versions in stable Fedora, OpenSuSE, Mageia... last time I checked we weren't so ahead on this (thanks to kernel team ;)) About Gnome, situation should improve soon, regarding KDE looks like we are OK. Also, with Phajdan Jr automated bug reports situation improved and, usually, the blocker is slow feedback from package maintainers in that bug reports. But once arches are CC, arch teams usually do the job really fast (specially thanks to Ago)