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 1EGNLY-0001XO-1X for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Fri, 16 Sep 2005 21:02:12 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with SMTP id j8GKuMq2025287; Fri, 16 Sep 2005 20:56:22 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 j8GKsbO0007880 for ; Fri, 16 Sep 2005 20:54:37 GMT Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=home.wh0rd.org) by smtp.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1EGNJB-0004cT-Cf for gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org; Fri, 16 Sep 2005 20:59:45 +0000 Received: (qmail 9454 invoked from network); 16 Sep 2005 16:55:47 -0400 Received: from unknown (HELO vapier) (192.168.0.2) by 192.168.0.1 with SMTP; 16 Sep 2005 16:55:47 -0400 From: Mike Frysinger Organization: wh0rd.org To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] first council meeting Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2005 16:59:56 -0400 User-Agent: KMail/1.8.2 References: <20050915205149.GB22270@vino.zko.hp.com> <200509161633.13867.vapier@gentoo.org> <20050916214420.25408844@snowdrop.home> In-Reply-To: <20050916214420.25408844@snowdrop.home> 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: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200509161659.56603.vapier@gentoo.org> X-Archives-Salt: 4b8c2f4e-b025-4ee5-ab9d-649dcfba5403 X-Archives-Hash: d1acd12b2438f1788266d9c0456a828e On Friday 16 September 2005 04:44 pm, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 16:33:13 -0400 Mike Frysinger > > wrote: > | ok, e17 packages dont count here. however, your hardcore view i > | still dont buy. how about the baselayout-1.9.x -> baselayout-1.11.x > | stabilization process ? are you telling me that arch teams should > | have had the power to move those into stable without talking to the > | maintainer ? baselayout may be a core package, but if you continue > | with your hard rule here, then it doesnt matter. > > I'm saying that arch teams should be allowed to mark it stable if they > think it's appropriate. Not that it must be moved to stable after $x > days, but that it can be at the arch team's discretion. And any arch > team which is silly enough to mark a broken baselayout stable has far > bigger problems anyway... baselayout is an example, any package can be used here (although not many are as critical) i'm saying that the maintainer may have a certain idea of when the package is ready for stable (a target feature set, working out certain quirks, etc...). your current hard view does not allow for that. for example, i had an arch maintainer one time mark bash-3 stable before base-system was ready for it (readline, baselayout, etc... were going to be stabilized together). i smacked them hard for it, but if we went with this hard view, it would have been perfectly acceptable behavior. -mike -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list