From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org) by nuthatch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1I0Veo-0003az-6N for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Tue, 19 Jun 2007 04:49:34 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.0/8.14.0) with SMTP id l5J4maC9009195; Tue, 19 Jun 2007 04:48:36 GMT Received: from rs25s3.datacenter.cha.cantv.net (rs25s3.datacenter.cha.cantv.net [200.44.33.4]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.0/8.14.0) with ESMTP id l5J4k0Vw005675 for ; Tue, 19 Jun 2007 04:46:00 GMT Received: from localhost (dC854664E.dslam-01-3-15-01-1-01.smg.dsl.cantv.net [200.84.102.78]) by rs25s3.datacenter.cha.cantv.net (8.13.8/8.13.0/3.0) with ESMTP id l5J4jxjI011437 for ; Tue, 19 Jun 2007 00:45:59 -0400 X-Matched-Lists: [] Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost with esmtp (Exim 4.66) (envelope-from ) id 1I0VWL-0004Cl-IW for gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org; Tue, 19 Jun 2007 00:40:49 -0400 Message-ID: <46775E51.9040708@gentoo.org> Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 00:40:49 -0400 From: Luis Francisco Araujo User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.0 (X11/20070427) Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Determining ebuild stability and the 30 day suggestion References: <46701D06.5080302@gentoo.org> <200706142041.37787.abhay.ilugd@gmail.com> <4671B6F8.9070507@gentoo.org> <200706151001.17924.abhay.ilugd@gmail.com> <467274D2.3080101@gentoo.org> <46728E08.8020200@gentoo.org> <4672E734.60703@thefreemanclan.net> <1182191680.14981.35.camel@workbox.quova.com> <1182220375.8229.16.camel@localhost> In-Reply-To: <1182220375.8229.16.camel@localhost> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV version 0.90.3, clamav-milter version 0.90.3 on 10.128.1.88 X-Virus-Status: Clean X-Archives-Salt: f4464ec8-fd26-419c-a6b3-e0e97836aac9 X-Archives-Hash: 1aadb93978f593ef04926f6f8d78640a -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Mart Raudsepp wrote: > Hey, > > On E, 2007-06-18 at 11:34 -0700, Chris Gianelloni wrote: >> Also, remember that stabilization is *supposed* to be about the >> stabilization of the *ebuild* and not the *package* itself. > > This sentence made me personally start looking at the policy in a > different way as far as stabilization and waiting for a set amount of > days is concerned. > > Does this mean that, when for example there are pure bug fix releases in > GNOME packages with no ebuild changes whatsoever, then we can consider, > without hesitation so much, to ask stabilization of these much sooner > than 30 days? Or the new version just has updated translations, which is > cool too (unless it's a very long building package) to get into the > hands of our world-wide users earlier with no practical chance of > breakage. > > Right now it is a rare exception to ask stabilization earlier than 30 > days, but should we do that more often for cases like I made an example > of (upstream following a strict bug-fixes/translations only rule as well > for the versions in question)? > > I use to ask for stabilization of the new version of a package immediately if it is supposed to fix an *important* security problem in the package, so that way we spread as soon as possible the new fix to our users. Not sure if this is documented somewhere as an exception to the 30 days rule, but i have not had problems so far and the stabilization teams have been willing to help me in such a cases. Regards, - -- Luis F. Araujo "araujo at gentoo.org" Gentoo Linux -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.4 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFGd15QaTNpke9pJcURAiIeAJ9IP9To0xwSU86eWyjOO+N6WQCQjwCeIXxG +wFGE1phct8Dtzg/0P33+Dk= =tcgj -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list