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 F3F27138247 for ; Wed, 15 Jan 2014 00:44:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 73FC2E0A53; Wed, 15 Jan 2014 00:44:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: from jacques.telenet-ops.be (jacques.telenet-ops.be [195.130.132.50]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 50C00E09F2 for ; Wed, 15 Jan 2014 00:44:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: from TOMWIJ-GENTOO ([94.226.55.127]) by jacques.telenet-ops.be with bizsmtp id E0kd1n00Z2khLEN0J0kdHh; Wed, 15 Jan 2014 01:44:37 +0100 Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2014 01:43:41 +0100 From: Tom Wijsman To: blueness@gentoo.org Cc: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: revisiting our stabilization policy Message-ID: <20140115014341.0338fa63@TOMWIJ-GENTOO> In-Reply-To: <52D5D39F.2000000@gentoo.org> References: <20140114213719.GA2684@laptop.home> <20140115004928.1fae6bf9@TOMWIJ-GENTOO> <201401150106.20742.dilfridge@gentoo.org> <52D5D39F.2000000@gentoo.org> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.9.0 (GTK+ 2.24.22; x86_64-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: multipart/signed; micalg=PGP-SHA1; boundary="Sig_/mBYzSCTJ=/W4fFoNUM9Wi0t"; protocol="application/pgp-signature" X-Archives-Salt: 7390ae83-89e9-4318-bca2-51e8566f2edf X-Archives-Hash: 2aa0262e0c3fa699e51c0827f7ef169e --Sig_/mBYzSCTJ=/W4fFoNUM9Wi0t Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, 14 Jan 2014 19:17:35 -0500 "Anthony G. Basile" wrote: > On 01/14/2014 07:06 PM, Andreas K. Huettel wrote: > > Am Mittwoch, 15. Januar 2014, 00:49:28 schrieb Tom Wijsman: > >> On Tue, 14 Jan 2014 15:37:19 -0600 > >> > >> William Hubbs wrote: > >>> Thoughts? > >> In this situation, I see three opposite ends of choices: > >> > > Here's another idea: > > > > 4. Friendly ask the arch teams / make a policy that @system > > packages come first. > > > > (maybe these stable requests could be marked "major" in bugzilla > > then?) > > > > >=20 > Actually that's a very good idea. In fact, since those are the > critical packages we can have the arch teams focus on them, and allow > more relax policies of stabilization on less critical packages. Besides allowing certain packages to be set a higher policy, we could also recommend that maintainers lower it if needed; for example: If I want to stabilize some plugin, it doesn't really have to be put "Normal" you know; I wouldn't bother it to be "Enhancement". --=20 With kind regards, Tom Wijsman (TomWij) Gentoo Developer E-mail address : TomWij@gentoo.org GPG Public Key : 6D34E57D GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2 ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D --Sig_/mBYzSCTJ=/W4fFoNUM9Wi0t Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJS1dm9AAoJEJWyH81tNOV9kGQIAJ95UMV7A23wcplJ8U2o3j2C nN+yqNAy2KI3phXB61WhoGiaHspVA1dDs3u3N75CgoE5w4EtmSug2MyEjzlse9iv dsgPfZKeGbbWi/98ZkfQXc/9E8fAShNI9P4F9dj8FSBjFxxb1Ud4GdJnkszcxLp4 AtVJEDTqF1pPT/FRvSdRjns3gIxJeLZhWUONvxlxZaytOR8avZUwMFeBhTgWaVhg xtOsq3OnR7Z+HXJTFGDhEz3G+XWRkpWFrAU07y7GFfyv+fNIuvkxzrmThLYquE04 qHvZQ+ieLntPtHvIDLEEQBy/aleJ/pQJwzd57/XCcQQwOhHwAZMBhj7AHo7z0NE= =WBBG -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Sig_/mBYzSCTJ=/W4fFoNUM9Wi0t--