From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gentoo-dev+bounces-59461-garchives=archives.gentoo.org@lists.gentoo.org>
Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80])
	by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 736BE138010
	for <garchives@archives.gentoo.org>; Tue,  2 Apr 2013 13:34:03 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id E373BE0866;
	Tue,  2 Apr 2013 13:34:00 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from foo.stuge.se (foo.stuge.se [212.116.89.98])
	by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD580E0835
	for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Tue,  2 Apr 2013 13:33:59 +0000 (UTC)
Received: (qmail 12180 invoked by uid 501); 2 Apr 2013 13:33:57 -0000
Message-ID: <20130402133357.12179.qmail@stuge.se>
Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2013 15:33:57 +0200
From: Peter Stuge <peter@stuge.se>
To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] bash-3.1 stable
Mail-Followup-To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
References: <515ACE47.3030206@gentoo.org> <515ADCF4.2010105@gentoo.org>
Precedence: bulk
List-Post: <mailto:gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gentoo-dev+help@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+unsubscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+subscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail <gentoo-dev.gentoo.org>
X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <515ADCF4.2010105@gentoo.org>
X-Archives-Salt: 6e6b5a10-8b4a-4224-9e9f-41f367557dae
X-Archives-Hash: a593e083933eb7c1bea78e0d7e204463

Samuli Suominen wrote:
> imho,
..
> we should stick to the "latest stable is the stable" mantra
> (i'm not sure if this is even documented anywhere? and propably
> should not be? keep it as maintainer specific decision like it's now?)

If it's the agreen-upon way then why not document it?


//Peter