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 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1Hy3Iw-0000zl-63 for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Tue, 12 Jun 2007 10:08:51 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.0/8.14.0) with SMTP id l5CA675J031709; Tue, 12 Jun 2007 10:06:07 GMT Received: from smtp.ferdyx.org (170.Red-213-96-222.staticIP.rima-tde.net [213.96.222.170]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.0/8.14.0) with ESMTP id l5CA1lOV024362 for ; Tue, 12 Jun 2007 10:01:47 GMT Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.ferdyx.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC1B58D30C for ; Tue, 12 Jun 2007 10:32:49 +0200 (CEST) Received: from smtp.ferdyx.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (tungsteno [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 04834-08 for ; Tue, 12 Jun 2007 10:32:44 +0200 (CEST) Received: from posidon.ferdyx.org (posidon.ferdyx.org [192.168.0.2]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.ferdyx.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 87F0B8D305 for ; Tue, 12 Jun 2007 10:32:43 +0200 (CEST) Received: by posidon.ferdyx.org (nbSMTP-1.01-cvs) for uid 1000 (using TLSv1/SSLv3 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) ferdy@gentoo.org; Tue, 12 Jun 2007 12:01:40 +0200 (CEST) Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 12:01:39 +0200 From: "Fernando J. Pereda" To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] guidline to set a timeline of removal of ebuild from stable tree Message-ID: <20070612100139.GA4738@ferdyx.org> Mail-Followup-To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org References: 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="T4sUOijqQbZv57TR" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.15 (2007-04-06) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new-20030616-p10 (Debian) at ferdyx.org X-Archives-Salt: 92cad70e-865d-4a77-8e5b-3dcafcd06e51 X-Archives-Hash: 47ae3e8c3ff12586ba124b489783c79a --T4sUOijqQbZv57TR Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, Jun 12, 2007 at 11:40:26AM +0200, cilly wrote: > In my opinion, ebuilds are removed too soon, i.e. if an ebuild gets > updated the older ebuild gets removed in the same turn. In my > opinion, it is better to keep the older ebuild around for a while > since if there are some bugs in the newer ebuild, users are able to > downgrade easily. >=20 > My suggestion is to set up a guidline similar like it exists for > marking the ebuilds as stable (4 weeks). >=20 > Probably, a time period for removing ebuilds would be nice to have, I > think 2 weeks would be reasonable if there aren't any known bugs of > the newer ebuild. Of course, if the newer ebuild has bugs, which do > not exist in the older ebuild the older ebuild should still be kept > to let the user be able to choose, which version they want. >=20 > What do you think? I think that setting arbitrary guidelines that try to rule every situation is just *plain* wrong. Some of the packages I maintain are better removed when a new maintenance version is released. And I plan to keep it that way :) As usual, deep known of the package you are removing and common sense is way better than guidelines 'to rule them all'. - ferdy --=20 Fernando J. Pereda Garcimart=EDn 20BB BDC3 761A 4781 E6ED ED0B 0A48 5B0C 60BD 28D4 --T4sUOijqQbZv57TR Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFGbm8DCkhbDGC9KNQRAlfOAJsEqe9E9j2Zav6oD9H6RKo9DLaomgCgjSwA IL55/IMVdIx3yEL32/eegME= =ncGV -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --T4sUOijqQbZv57TR-- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list