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 8BEDB138247 for ; Wed, 15 Jan 2014 02:42:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id C9897E0AB8; Wed, 15 Jan 2014 02:35:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: from juliette.telenet-ops.be (juliette.telenet-ops.be [195.130.137.74]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B250E0AAE for ; Wed, 15 Jan 2014 02:35:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: from TOMWIJ-GENTOO ([94.226.55.127]) by juliette.telenet-ops.be with bizsmtp id E2bk1n00k2khLEN062bkBC; Wed, 15 Jan 2014 03:35:45 +0100 Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2014 03:34:49 +0100 From: Tom Wijsman To: mjo@gentoo.org Cc: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: revisiting our stabilization policy Message-ID: <20140115033449.4c049db2@TOMWIJ-GENTOO> In-Reply-To: <52D5F0BF.3060305@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> <20140115020934.GA3886@laptop.home> <52D5F0BF.3060305@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_/SciRorl3fGFUVY+kJ4eG16f"; protocol="application/pgp-signature" X-Archives-Salt: 9d8ba22f-17f6-45a1-9837-f10cc612c0be X-Archives-Hash: 8ed8c0812453929591ad42608aa01de0 --Sig_/SciRorl3fGFUVY+kJ4eG16f Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, 14 Jan 2014 21:21:51 -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. gentoo-sources-3.10.25 is stable on the most important arches; but, other arches are left in the dark with a stable 3.10.7(-r1). Now, what is well known is that kernel.org upstream backports mostly known fixes; as their goals is for this long term stable branch to increase the value of what you claim people running stable need... stability. But, as those people running stable on those arches are stuck on 3.10.7(-r1); heh, they're not running the more stable kernel at all. > I would much rather wait for the arch teams to get un-busy than to be > forced to upgrade to something untested. If they get stabilization requests faster than they can stabilize, then they will remain busy for as long as we don't get manpower to turn around the tide; and as mentioned in the mail of a few minutes ago, there are other options possible too. Forcing is just one of them. > Why would I care if it takes another month? What about another year? Or ten years? Why would users care? > 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. This is the exact same argument as in your other mail, which is your point of view; this is under the assumption that you know that stabilization is worsening over time, which users may not perceive. --=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_/SciRorl3fGFUVY+kJ4eG16f Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJS1fPJAAoJEJWyH81tNOV9n8sIAI8vN142XI68lrKa6HNHFUjA 4wbVrvt9ZsapShcYdEzuhEvWqJch2S4RNL1RIY/eQyVVCKg8nXPwOebbMp0k/JxS 9XVNgQageObz6tlYs60xc9LJn4v2sp88zGQHrlf70GwNSfW2Dgkwg2Rj1dEM0HcB YR2Z+vGbnu3DFrAYAz9BeoEz9UEH1pDMZXlaEWumk2TWGm3n8xf4yXFaiuu1pw1O BVQuunrlTPO7yUTAXVPJpIldWYEuBT2XNF5ItwwpUjGP9FJq3XTFDBEqm5WaJgwX 6F1uJ9AqLUEZn+H/0Y85nq3/X+iDEcNFcdRPi2VfLjD2tQH7l5omY5KGXPGAP0Y= =Igep -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Sig_/SciRorl3fGFUVY+kJ4eG16f--