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 B4D65138247 for ; Wed, 15 Jan 2014 02:46:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 7B935E0ABF; Wed, 15 Jan 2014 02:46:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-ob0-f171.google.com (mail-ob0-f171.google.com [209.85.214.171]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8E3B5E0AA8 for ; Wed, 15 Jan 2014 02:46:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-ob0-f171.google.com with SMTP id wm4so546815obc.16 for ; Tue, 14 Jan 2014 18:46:08 -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=whJy69/rO3j+5UUpGtpQPvD1eiSyNQdrVc/pU0kqtgY=; b=k7i5b/N9SYDPEDOHfyws2JhZdnKDC4h5Arm3tXZpJCjvcil9FUQgRsDy5LPDwBp6E1 ae/25cYG00tSmlDfNkskrWdjq/n3KwbCOQcbIo8MwT2/UgzoPv1DppltPgMzrlTfxcUn M7dG7REnjeBWHkJu4aW3pfT+XWN9va6dg5VcYVdME/NmpPVmIYpIBK93uKyesgU/+wYz SzKIY8g2VVSTUgGeM0RgCSNfY+rQxPe6+0fpg8/ZThaBjObCXsRelsvRqkefBasp46yq TlrXapAN2AuC5QkCPkEnV0oUN6Bus0rxxcSsQr+iZ5Ps+7dwlPVMIrBDpkm+g+EcrMkS vF9g== X-Received: by 10.60.148.197 with SMTP id tu5mr3929710oeb.11.1389753968707; Tue, 14 Jan 2014 18:46:08 -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 ru3sm2935884obc.2.2014.01.14.18.46.05 for (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 14 Jan 2014 18:46:07 -0800 (PST) Sender: William Hubbs Received: by laptop (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Tue, 14 Jan 2014 20:46:04 -0600 Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2014 20:46:04 -0600 From: William Hubbs To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: revisiting our stabilization policy Message-ID: <20140115024604.GA3952@laptop.home> Mail-Followup-To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org References: <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> <20140115020934.GA3886@laptop.home> <52D5F0BF.3060305@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="OgqxwSJOaUobr8KG" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <52D5F0BF.3060305@gentoo.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-Archives-Salt: dbf63473-fc9d-4c90-bdfc-a42a5437e90b X-Archives-Hash: c0cdc72becd37baaa8d9a35155c1f619 --OgqxwSJOaUobr8KG Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 09:21:51PM -0500, Michael Orlitzky wrote: > On 01/14/2014 09:09 PM, William Hubbs wrote: > >=20 > > 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. > >=20 >=20 > People running stable value... stability. I would much rather wait for > the arch teams to get un-busy than to be forced to upgrade to something > untested. Why would I care if it takes another month? Strictly from a > user's perspective. I don't, unless I do, in which case I know that I > do, and I could just keyword the thing if I wanted to. s/month/year/ Do you feel the same way then? I have heard of stabilizations taking this long before. I just had to try to pick something reasonable for the discussion. I suppose a compromise would be, instead of removing the old versions, move them back to ~arch for a month then remove them, but that still implies action on your part. William --OgqxwSJOaUobr8KG Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAlLV9mwACgkQblQW9DDEZTgNRwCcC05rX/d1Z7KEYjA3jJi5KbjG o/0AnAoTsBj3JRgxfKpg46q0xdRH5k9w =eZ0x -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --OgqxwSJOaUobr8KG--