From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D383813832E for ; Wed, 17 Aug 2016 08:53:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 1AF6921C164; Wed, 17 Aug 2016 08:52:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 96F1921C122 for ; Wed, 17 Aug 2016 08:52:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.1.107] (unknown [92.185.72.90]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: pacho) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D7AD7340A51; Wed, 17 Aug 2016 08:52:35 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <1471423952.31785.54.camel@gentoo.org> Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] New Working Group established to evaluate the stable tree From: Pacho Ramos To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Cc: rich0@gentoo.org Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2016 10:52:32 +0200 In-Reply-To: <20160815200105.GA22318@whubbs1.gaikai.biz> References: <6046d13b-1a54-aa5e-ab16-df448b0f8c59@gentoo.org> <1471248012.31785.32.camel@gentoo.org> <20160815141922.GA3878@linux1.gaikai.biz> <1bff7eb3-cc91-bba7-1f7f-9e7f76906df3@gentoo.org> <20160815161241.GA21389@whubbs1.gaikai.biz> <20160815173130.GA21750@whubbs1.gaikai.biz> <20160815191248.GA21981@whubbs1.gaikai.biz> <20160815200105.GA22318@whubbs1.gaikai.biz> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.20.4 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: b2e53052-4521-4c99-9f1d-0f77a244c976 X-Archives-Hash: acc243dbcab965fae6301194667ac8fc El lun, 15-08-2016 a las 15:01 -0500, William Hubbs escribió: > [...] >  This works unless you are talking about packages in @system. > I do see core packages on these arches also languish in ~ for months > with open stable requests. > > The only way to handle one of those would be to remove the old > version > and let their deptree break until they catch up. > > William > But, anyway, I would still put a timeout for allowing us to go ahead and stabilize, otherwise we have the huge risk of having the users of that arches facing a broken deptree for weeks/months until that teams are able to stabilize the packages (and they needing to *manually* keyword new versions of the packages... and hence needing to move exactly to the same versions we (maintainer) could have stabilized after the 90 days period)