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 1RbVck-0005SI-59 for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Fri, 16 Dec 2011 11:06:48 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 3429521C0B2; Fri, 16 Dec 2011 11:06:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F21CE21C062 for ; Fri, 16 Dec 2011 11:06:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: from devil (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: ago) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 44F1C1B4094 for ; Fri, 16 Dec 2011 11:06:10 +0000 (UTC) From: Agostino Sarubbo To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] making the stable tree more up-to-date Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2011 12:06:23 +0100 Message-ID: <1769026.9R6ACMvGeL@devil> User-Agent: KMail/4.7.3 (Linux/2.6.39-gentoo ; KDE/4.7.3; i686; ; ) In-Reply-To: <4EEB2087.2050608@gentoo.org> References: <4ECA0EA3.8020407@gentoo.org> <4EEB2087.2050608@gentoo.org> 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-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="nextPart1433489.y9CbTgvPt3"; micalg="pgp-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit X-Archives-Salt: f62fde33-3c1b-4003-8886-1593c95025d6 X-Archives-Hash: cbc121d53af7d6155526c430865dcab7 --nextPart1433489.y9CbTgvPt3 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" On Friday 16 December 2011 11:42:15 justin wrote: > Hi, > > I really like that you open all those bugs. But it makes no sense to add > arches after a "time out". Personally, I agree with have "more stable packages in tree", but I just point out one thing. If me, or another arch tester find ebuild issue(s) and maintainers does not care of it, makes no sense imho. I mark stable with a script and I'm uncomfortable to fix them. As Justin said, all maintainers are responsible of their packages, so I'd prefer to not touch other stuff. If you(for any developers) are busy and/or you can't fix them, feel free to mail me or just give an "ack" via irc and I'll provide to fix. Regards Agostino --nextPart1433489.y9CbTgvPt3 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) iQEcBAABCgAGBQJO6yYvAAoJEOTDgjZ80txdpbUIAIKEORy3pkKALJXbzoeOGpaQ EDN3cZb/uQ1fLeLOr0xqKeyt0QBIPsJMFm5SKTNmUy9DtjoGbLaRGA/hzwuJsVp7 YoIQmKKtQ4bCNx7/WsKqD35bqRKFhRMZJ6Rt4LOo+Z4eevjDw6M4o0stgcLmN3O7 bqW3pDFUcs4mQkmrnZZHLeY69BwqmF86Y2zNW2ERKMjta/8oIxDKf3d9QV/sJ58n QxRm1FyeAis24NFUWkkrucXQoExUn31IVI15ynUxRUcfszwEznIQotQ2wpiQJrhP Lmcp/4mm7jBhpr/gLYO3e2VXMX0FxSLyozClpi+o4epg8MKNGr+Ea7ddEIdIhUk= =tPAR -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --nextPart1433489.y9CbTgvPt3--