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 052A4138247 for ; Wed, 15 Jan 2014 02:43:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 7A7BFE0AB2; Wed, 15 Jan 2014 02:43:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: from jacques.telenet-ops.be (jacques.telenet-ops.be [195.130.132.50]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 549D0E0AA8 for ; Wed, 15 Jan 2014 02:43:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: from TOMWIJ-GENTOO ([94.226.55.127]) by jacques.telenet-ops.be with bizsmtp id E2j41n0112khLEN0J2j4dE; Wed, 15 Jan 2014 03:43:04 +0100 Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2014 03:42:09 +0100 From: Tom Wijsman To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: revisiting our stabilization policy Message-ID: <20140115034209.73125eb3@TOMWIJ-GENTOO> In-Reply-To: <20140115020934.GA3886@laptop.home> 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> 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_/S3xz2osNoB68scYcjK87GF_"; protocol="application/pgp-signature" X-Archives-Salt: 67fe5b4f-c509-41f0-98ca-ad07018269af X-Archives-Hash: 5220cfd9bc18f0c48d10fa7aee7eb8c9 --Sig_/S3xz2osNoB68scYcjK87GF_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, 14 Jan 2014 20:09:34 -0600 William Hubbs wrote: > 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. Exactly, the common case for stabilization bugs is that stabilization just happens; as far as I have seen, it is rather rare that another bug blocks the stabilization bug. At least this is the case for the common package; as for important bugs, which should be treated with more care, it is more common for these blocking bugs to get filed. If the arch hasn't responded for X months; then marking a version stable oneself on a non-important package should be acceptable, it doesn't yield any huge problem afaik and isn't that much different. And for that occasional mis-guess, *boohoo*, the user can just file a bug; which ironically even happens occasionally for stable packages. --=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_/S3xz2osNoB68scYcjK87GF_ Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJS1fWBAAoJEJWyH81tNOV9SyYIALQOn8+9Gjhx7YI3s48Aa7v2 /KagE7SHhFfwsefeHQBT6dLxhHoDf37WxGbDT+8oXfs6KDhupfbRY5j/aEUhFoom nFou5vGWN4joKl/PShx+fRqEzAB1kjzyW2Q1BDsP1BHtr0couVJaf0Yi32JkiumJ XcF7XtiI/ioHR4hC2jMmUzeu36uOCU7ExE6Z67FjuFr2QKGTCmp8G7dAI1WO5QQY ls853wDjFv72PkRdTERcWxp/bclez0+WpwuChrmH4YdU3B7vPznBX7qZR5RyeIjg CaMbrIjb+5kHy7UzE4RNLhnRvK+/p33cUXejGW0B38ELTjTu2XPetrIFal5733I= =OZl2 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Sig_/S3xz2osNoB68scYcjK87GF_--