From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gentoo-dev+bounces-64349-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 847C8138247
for <garchives@archives.gentoo.org>; Wed, 15 Jan 2014 02:09:41 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id DB096E0A99;
Wed, 15 Jan 2014 02:09:35 +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 DF4FFE0A83
for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Wed, 15 Jan 2014 02:09:34 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-oa0-f54.google.com with SMTP id o6so539623oag.13
for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Tue, 14 Jan 2014 18:09:34 -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=TTVxMlGvQKtBbZ4nWK4bHiGD6crNwLt+4zHrEeukHXI=;
b=fC4B1qsheV/OoeVzX8hNJAhKbKhxI26rzNryu9Fj9LDd4VwaUGcEdWxLfPpJ8X0fUC
yiPse6bhwN3wuQ8LnYO7fxCZGLwb9TOo2IUl0yEKGVehBsTGg3xKc8y471WQRlqzYE5F
JUQBcPWwqVk6p+9EO9wW3oCUZD4fD6XMdes3MZpUFxy22F13GIyMsDDsXLzroWMbk0ie
/542qFZVpTHgljtZelIrsupcSb18wygW++wKu6wkTEUu00dq0+HDgz8Hhdt3joP6r0Tt
im+Dg+0z18XDTSZVmTZh7ZyhWvZLaILRDfmONMOUTU0UoL3c2ds6pJGv+IMYXH+lOk+O
IfZA==
X-Received: by 10.182.22.33 with SMTP id a1mr4044097obf.60.1389751774037;
Tue, 14 Jan 2014 18:09:34 -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 r6sm2804578obi.14.2014.01.14.18.09.31
for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>
(version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128);
Tue, 14 Jan 2014 18:09:32 -0800 (PST)
Sender: William Hubbs <w.d.hubbs@gmail.com>
Received: by laptop (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Tue, 14 Jan 2014 20:09:34 -0600
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2014 20:09:34 -0600
From: William Hubbs <williamh@gentoo.org>
To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: revisiting our stabilization policy
Message-ID: <20140115020934.GA3886@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>
<20140114231113.GA3393@laptop.home>
<52D5DAB6.1000609@gentoo.org>
<20140115020802.700b1568@TOMWIJ-GENTOO>
<52D5E03C.3010900@gentoo.org>
<20140115022337.4336618d@TOMWIJ-GENTOO>
<52D5E60A.80600@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: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;
protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="/04w6evG8XlLl3ft"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <52D5E60A.80600@gentoo.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
X-Archives-Salt: 3626cba3-39f0-44ea-8159-ff650bcd1d22
X-Archives-Hash: 791613ac0f3a9a4f5595fe1dd108a155
--/04w6evG8XlLl3ft
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 08:36:10PM -0500, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
> On 01/14/2014 08:23 PM, Tom Wijsman wrote:
> > On Tue, 14 Jan 2014 20:11:24 -0500
> > Michael Orlitzky <mjo@gentoo.org> wrote:
> >=20
> >> On 01/14/2014 08:08 PM, Tom Wijsman wrote:
> >>>
> >>> This is under the assumption that the user knows of the state of the
> >>> stabilization worsening; if the user is unaware of that change, the
> >>> "could have done anyway" might be less common and first something
> >>> bad would need to happen before they realize the worsened
> >>> stabilization.
> >>>
> >>
> >> If I don't realize it, it ain't broke.
> >=20
> > So, you're going to wait for corruption, a security breach or something
> > along those lines to happen first?
>=20
> I will wait for them to be *known*.
>=20
> Security stabilizations are already treated special, so while they'd
> make a nice example here you don't get to invoke them =3D)
>=20
> It's highly unlikely that one day a stable piece of software is just
> going to start corrupting data randomly when some other stable package
> is updated. Why? Because arch testers have to test them before they go
> stable! It's even more unlikely that upgrading to untested stuff would
> be safer than staying put, which is really all I care about given a
> choice between the two.
>=20
> For really bad cases like data corruption we already have procedures
> that allow quick stabilization ("reasonable amount of time..."). All
> we're really talking about here is forcing me to upgrade to an unstable
> package for some features or bugfixes I don't care about.
After the package has been sitting in ~arch for 90 days with an open
stable request with no blockers that the arch team has not taken any
action on. We are not talking about randomly yanking package versions,
just doing something when arch teams are not responsive, and it seems
that the cleanest thing to do would be to remove the old versions.
William
--/04w6evG8XlLl3ft
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEARECAAYFAlLV7d4ACgkQblQW9DDEZThGcQCgmGBpxd4lrEeEwosxMa7DPO8O
Ny0An2Y8kjEtUbFYTq1stCXiBwc+5VdG
=JrMU
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--/04w6evG8XlLl3ft--