Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: revisiting our stabilization policy

[William Hubbs <williamh@gentoo.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1486 bytes --]

On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 05:43:57PM -0500, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
> On 01/14/2014 05:33 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 04:57:30PM -0500, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
> >> On 01/14/2014 04:37 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
> >>>
> >>> 2. I would like to see the policy below applied to all arch's [2].
> >>
> >> [ ] Yup
> >> [X] Nope
> > 
> > The reverse of this would be to let maintainers stabilize on all arch's
> > after 90 days, then they are allowed to remove all but the latest stable
> > version. This isn't good though because maintainers would be stabilizing
> > packages on arch's where they can't test.
> > 
> > The stable tree is significantly behind because the arch teams are so
> > short staffed, and this prooposal is an attempt to fix that.
> 
> It's attempting to fix a headache with a bullet. The arch teams are
> lagging behind, you're annoyed, I get it. Give 'em hell. But don't break
> stable to make a point.
> 
> For users, both options are worse than the status quo.

The first option would start reverting things back to ~ and users would
have to unmask them.

The second option would introduce new things to stable which may not be
stable due to not being tested on the arch.

The second option is worse than the first imo, that's why I didn't
propose it first.

The status quo is not good, because we are forced to keep old, and
potentially buggy, versions of software around longer than necessary.

William


[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]