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 EABAE138247 for ; Tue, 14 Jan 2014 23:11:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 4D52EE09EC; Tue, 14 Jan 2014 23:11:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-oa0-f54.google.com (mail-oa0-f54.google.com [209.85.219.54]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5C8B6E096C for ; Tue, 14 Jan 2014 23:11:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-oa0-f54.google.com with SMTP id o6so368596oag.27 for ; Tue, 14 Jan 2014 15:11:13 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=sender:date:from:to:subject:message-id:mail-followup-to:references :mime-version:content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to :user-agent; bh=ShlyEkFMczdWdQ4daZL1RmvpKvRafoZYZYDhcF0EsrE=; b=KT3VnUN2q20YMBK5ytj1KayH+SWGkBy+0LFXIJk2Hgd0/tg0H3ZYIkGtvF7brBNDiV gjTvdWOwuoJ1CJbvotrk3+/AGS1gHQqekAFVwcALI4TLCOrlhfFO4EQXkdDulWkA2hlf Fxei9HcD4eQLaJc/h+g3z2av9SNx1bDfFXGADxWgaRaSd905DzzCd4Vv2CXUZDN0eLgr mzPH2YEFvf//SZ9VBWP4PKiCQ8BiMSS+hJjork1SIzsUg5p0HVm+58KfKFqBhmQnbevL jn6wH/zY48QsGoWC7P38WYup2j54oaQjCpb5NK1Sv1EgIpWS+aJouCvNjEuE4MTHBiBv jPew== X-Received: by 10.182.153.226 with SMTP id vj2mr3463500obb.26.1389741073389; Tue, 14 Jan 2014 15:11:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from laptop (cpe-76-187-91-128.tx.res.rr.com. [76.187.91.128]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id tr10sm2277672obb.6.2014.01.14.15.11.10 for (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 14 Jan 2014 15:11:11 -0800 (PST) Sender: William Hubbs Received: by laptop (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Tue, 14 Jan 2014 17:11:13 -0600 Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2014 17:11:13 -0600 From: William Hubbs To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: revisiting our stabilization policy Message-ID: <20140114231113.GA3393@laptop.home> Mail-Followup-To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org References: <20140114213719.GA2684@laptop.home> <52D5B2CA.5030407@gentoo.org> <20140114223312.GA3337@laptop.home> <52D5BDAD.4030808@gentoo.org> 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: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="SUOF0GtieIMvvwua" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <52D5BDAD.4030808@gentoo.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-Archives-Salt: 39de7a51-ba5e-46bc-8fb9-ca6c2451dc59 X-Archives-Hash: 48844ac5a959f02594d9a99fd4a0acfa --SUOF0GtieIMvvwua Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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 > >=20 > > 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. > >=20 > > The stable tree is significantly behind because the arch teams are so > > short staffed, and this prooposal is an attempt to fix that. >=20 > 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. >=20 > 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 --SUOF0GtieIMvvwua Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAlLVxBEACgkQblQW9DDEZTgS7gCfb1Qpo9trHLxnxXzD8frwmuj2 kPsAoJxYdQ7fEbNdP+u+yZOD7kBwiiAN =Jm/j -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --SUOF0GtieIMvvwua--