[gentoo-dev] policy for marking development branches of programs as stable?

[gentoo-dev] policy for marking development branches of programs as stable?

[Kurt Lieber]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 468 bytes --]

I just noticed that mutt-1.5.4-r1 was marked stable on x86.  The 1.5 branch
of mutt is the development branch -- 1.4 is the stable branch, similar to
the 2.4/2.5 kernel series.

It seems wrong to me that we would mark development branches of software as
stable.  The mutt developers, who presumably know mutt much better than any
of us do, don't feel 1.5 is stable -- who are we to disagree?

Do we have some sort of policy for this?  If not, can we make one?

--kurt

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] policy for marking development branches of programs as stable?

[Paul de Vrieze]

[-- Attachment #1: signed data --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 821 bytes --]

On Saturday 19 July 2003 18:17, Kurt Lieber wrote:
> I just noticed that mutt-1.5.4-r1 was marked stable on x86.  The 1.5 branch
> of mutt is the development branch -- 1.4 is the stable branch, similar to
> the 2.4/2.5 kernel series.
>
> It seems wrong to me that we would mark development branches of software as
> stable.  The mutt developers, who presumably know mutt much better than any
> of us do, don't feel 1.5 is stable -- who are we to disagree?
>
> Do we have some sort of policy for this?  If not, can we make one?

I believe there is a policy, and, although deviation is allowed, I do believe 
that in this case it is not appropriate. Deviation is more in case the latest 
stable is ancient.

Paul

-- 
Paul de Vrieze
Researcher
Mail: pauldv@cs.kun.nl
Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net

[-- Attachment #2: signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] policy for marking development branches of programs as stable?

[Lars Weiler]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 721 bytes --]

* Kurt Lieber <klieber@gentoo.org> [03/07/19 12:17 -0400]:
>It seems wrong to me that we would mark development branches of software as
>stable.

Have a look at xcdroast (http://www.xcdroast.org/).  This
software is _alpha since ages, but it is in our stable
branch.  The author himself suggest switching to his
0.98-alpha branch instead of using the unsupported
0.96-stable-branch (which is more unstable than the newer
branch ;-) ).

In my eyes an all over all policy isn't adviceable.  The
package maintainers should know, if it could be used in
Gentoo stable (although the software itself is in
development).  But check it twice and have a talk with the
developers of this software if you're in doubt.

Regards, Lars

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]