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 1EC1Pa-0000Hx-BL for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sun, 04 Sep 2005 20:48:22 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with SMTP id j84Khc91005466; Sun, 4 Sep 2005 20:43:38 GMT Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [134.68.220.30]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id j84KeAWB019739 for ; Sun, 4 Sep 2005 20:40:10 GMT Received: from adsl-70-241-64-171.dsl.hstntx.swbell.net ([70.241.64.171] helo=localhost) by smtp.gentoo.org with esmtpa (Exim 4.43) id 1EC1KY-0006pZ-Sk for gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org; Sun, 04 Sep 2005 20:43:11 +0000 Date: Sun, 4 Sep 2005 15:43:11 -0500 From: Grant Goodyear To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] tentative x86 arch team glep Message-ID: <20050904204311.GF23576@dst.grantgoodyear.org> Mail-Followup-To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org References: <20050904143711.GD23576@dst.grantgoodyear.org> <200509041400.41299.vapier@gentoo.org> 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; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="OFj+1YLvsEfSXdCH" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200509041400.41299.vapier@gentoo.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.10i X-Archives-Salt: ad0571c8-6ac3-456e-9c04-0ce106f8587a X-Archives-Hash: 78b3802b09e752f593baf6a73057fac2 --OFj+1YLvsEfSXdCH Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Vapier wrote: [Sun Sep 04 2005, 01:00:41PM CDT] > this isnt quite true ... non-x86 archs usually take their queues for > when packages should be moved to stable from the maintainer of the > package Perfectly reasonable. > in other words, arch teams generally defer to maintainers (and rightly > so) as to when newer versions should go stable 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? -g2boojum- --=20 Grant Goodyear=09 Gentoo Developer g2boojum@gentoo.org http://www.gentoo.org/~g2boojum GPG Fingerprint: D706 9802 1663 DEF5 81B0 9573 A6DC 7152 E0F6 5B76 --OFj+1YLvsEfSXdCH Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFDG1xfptxxUuD2W3YRAlQLAJ44xadk+4/Lj8hSbWl4vdTAk5LGnACfUmYR LYqok5BWrAPNP3fnJJ/94Sc= =iEwt -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --OFj+1YLvsEfSXdCH-- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list