From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org) by nuthatch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1EC2BT-0005JI-D1 for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sun, 04 Sep 2005 21:37:51 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with SMTP id j84LY5BB023080; Sun, 4 Sep 2005 21:34:05 GMT Received: from sccrmhc11.comcast.net (sccrmhc11.comcast.net [63.240.76.21]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id j84LWOBq006853 for ; Sun, 4 Sep 2005 21:32:25 GMT Received: from enterprise.weeve.org (c-67-176-51-14.hsd1.co.comcast.net[67.176.51.14]) by comcast.net (sccrmhc11) with ESMTP id <2005090421352601100t0llue>; Sun, 4 Sep 2005 21:35:26 +0000 Date: Sun, 4 Sep 2005 15:35:25 -0600 From: Jason Wever To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] tentative x86 arch team glep Message-ID: <20050904153525.19396f04@enterprise.weeve.org> In-Reply-To: <20050904204311.GF23576@dst.grantgoodyear.org> References: <20050904143711.GD23576@dst.grantgoodyear.org> <200509041400.41299.vapier@gentoo.org> <20050904204311.GF23576@dst.grantgoodyear.org> Organization: Gentoo Linux X-Mailer: Sylpheed-Claws 1.0.5 (GTK+ 1.2.10; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary=Signature_Sun__4_Sep_2005_15_35_25_-0600_gaSuob4Wy1Yt5eER; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1 X-Archives-Salt: 0cf21180-745a-497d-8103-bb37016689f9 X-Archives-Hash: 4c807cd020bc5d14864a774d18d47337 --Signature_Sun__4_Sep_2005_15_35_25_-0600_gaSuob4Wy1Yt5eER Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sun, 4 Sep 2005 15:43:11 -0500 Grant Goodyear wrote: > I agree that the arch teams shouldn't be marking packages stable in > advance of when the the maintainer thinks it's ready. At the same > time, it's the respective arch teams, as "owners" of their entire > stable tree, who (in my opinion) should have the final "okay" on a > package going stable, since they're the ones with experience of the > entire stable tree. Does that make a bit more sense? For the most part, this makes sense, However we do have times where a particular arch team may need to stabilize a package sooner in the case where earlier versions are broken. This is not entirely uncommon to see packages that used to compile with stable keywords no longer compile after a period of time. Cheers, --=20 Jason Wever Gentoo/Sparc Team Co-Lead --Signature_Sun__4_Sep_2005_15_35_25_-0600_gaSuob4Wy1Yt5eER Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFDG2iddKvgdVioq28RAuH0AKCHUiqwx67fkv/QBRqc8LVS0oOgKgCgtFQ6 HMLTKcDgzm/QSUvYbb4hk8I= =Q5nv -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Signature_Sun__4_Sep_2005_15_35_25_-0600_gaSuob4Wy1Yt5eER-- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list