From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F248D198005 for ; Sun, 10 Mar 2013 18:04:30 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 84BB3E07D8; Sun, 10 Mar 2013 18:04:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 96997E07AE for ; Sun, 10 Mar 2013 18:04:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: from marga.jer-c2.orkz.net (D4B2706A.static.ziggozakelijk.nl [212.178.112.106]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: jer) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5E72033D3D2 for ; Sun, 10 Mar 2013 18:04:25 +0000 (UTC) Date: Sun, 10 Mar 2013 19:04:18 +0100 From: Jeroen Roovers To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in dev-libs/confuse: confuse-2.7.ebuild ChangeLog Message-ID: <20130310190418.40e7c3aa@marga.jer-c2.orkz.net> In-Reply-To: References: <20130301081602.D1F5D2171D@flycatcher.gentoo.org> <201303022057.29177.vapier@gentoo.org> <201303022144.36781.vapier@gentoo.org> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.9.0 (GTK+ 2.24.12; i686-pc-linux-gnu) Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Archives-Salt: bdd3ef47-47fb-41c2-aaa4-09ae73786b79 X-Archives-Hash: 7756d87e1fbe1cdbbb34d7ac098a3adb On Sun, 3 Mar 2013 12:44:18 +0100 Tom=C3=A1=C5=A1 Chv=C3=A1tal wrote: > If I remember correctly the damn rule is to put it for 30 days into > testing, and as you said there was no previous version on arm so users > could've reported some issues, i agree that sometimes you have to > ignore the rules to really fix stable, but was this such case for > sure? I've done straight to stable keywording _many_ times. The rationale is that with no previous version stable for a particular architecture, there really are no users who could see _regressions_, hence waiting the nominal thirty days is meaningless in this case. jer