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 B0213138247 for ; Thu, 16 Jan 2014 19:30:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id B3871E0BAC; Thu, 16 Jan 2014 19:30:02 +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 37699E0B95 for ; Thu, 16 Jan 2014 19:30:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-ob0-f171.google.com with SMTP id wm4so3249578obc.2 for ; Thu, 16 Jan 2014 11:30:00 -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=whumtvPubKYztAS6xj8DYSVw/UwpxTAu0d05QM4mJss=; b=cn3Ds5JMiN+Lg20plzY5WjNo4uMog7yVVZxk0mPOPG8ADUmS8qvMI9nqNNuXcbxQPN fikHa4JGG56kQdMn5MNiIX1cSyB9aChFf+coAti6Rx5Sim1vTRknSYm7trhfNqnuesjG 94x8mCIfw2d8XjmohKrJ8wIaPy8uR1XmNHKXw2XryP4KuLXhMRt89i0e4yc8S1uZdKqW cZdTTCoivqR4DZUgGEwCJXlvdzb+nY43Z+7U4rTu6+ca4jJcHhcEvNgKdaiS8HtcBVdv wTB41LH5yg1CwHfb6YZTBa73JrjZOKd/NogGVLWTm6ObfEnDgnKhxrCE5p2bOxUr382j J0lg== X-Received: by 10.60.98.174 with SMTP id ej14mr8736984oeb.16.1389900600233; Thu, 16 Jan 2014 11:30:00 -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 cx7sm11187272oeb.4.2014.01.16.11.29.56 for (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 16 Jan 2014 11:29:58 -0800 (PST) Sender: William Hubbs Received: by laptop (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Thu, 16 Jan 2014 13:29:55 -0600 Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2014 13:29:55 -0600 From: William Hubbs To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: revisiting our stabilization policy Message-ID: <20140116192955.GA11957@laptop.home> Mail-Followup-To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org References: <20140114213719.GA2684@laptop.home> <20140115004928.1fae6bf9@TOMWIJ-GENTOO> <52D673A4.2080508@gentoo.org> <20140115180405.1cd06453@TOMWIJ-GENTOO> <52D77A35.8080509@gentoo.org> <20140116155407.13492.qmail@stuge.se> <20140116181130.24751.qmail@stuge.se> 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="VS++wcV0S1rZb1Fb" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-Archives-Salt: aac702c7-6806-48d5-aa24-d1be1cb2ac70 X-Archives-Hash: b9a4742f6be18d7cfc3abf0a1203af83 --VS++wcV0S1rZb1Fb Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 01:42:41PM -0500, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 1:11 PM, Peter Stuge wrote: > > I certainly don't think the work needs to go away if the work is > > considered to be important. It's fine to have open bugs for years > > in the absence of a good solution. >=20 > I get what you're saying, though there is still a cost to leaving the > bug open to years. In this case it means an old package stays in the > tree marked as stable. That either costs maintainers the effort to > keep it work, or they don't bother to keep in working in which case > users get saddled with issues. Correct. > I am completely in support of making use of the priority field - if > something is causing issues by all means call attention to it. I bet > it would /help/ with the problem, but it won't make it go away. It might help, but, no, it will not make the problem go away. The issue is that the arch team and maintainer may have different ideas of what is high priority. If a maintainer opens a high priority stable request or bumps a stable request to high priority, there is no guarantee that the arch team will feel it should be prioritized the same way, and when that happens, users are stuck with issues from the old versions of the software. William --VS++wcV0S1rZb1Fb Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAlLYMzMACgkQblQW9DDEZThNMACgqsJSLCntAq5QSwcnuvaM7iVl Or4An2Q4NAI4YYKyx11nX3I6EmsdeVuj =/6jk -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --VS++wcV0S1rZb1Fb--