From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([69.77.167.62] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1JmOni-000274-2g for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Thu, 17 Apr 2008 07:44:58 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 9DD9AE04AF; Thu, 17 Apr 2008 07:44:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: from dsrg.mff.cuni.cz (dsrg.mff.cuni.cz [195.113.20.55]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 753D1E04AF for ; Thu, 17 Apr 2008 07:44:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vpn-ksi-dsrg.ms.mff.cuni.cz ([195.113.20.92] helo=[10.10.16.171]) by dsrg.mff.cuni.cz with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1JmOml-0006fg-Pa for gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org; Thu, 17 Apr 2008 09:43:59 +0200 Message-ID: <4806FFBF.40803@gentoo.org> Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2008 09:43:59 +0200 From: Vlastimil Babka User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.12 (X11/20080303) 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 To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Early stabilisation References: <20080415224619.387012bc@epia.jer-c2.orkz.net> <4805CBBA.5030100@gentoo.org> <1208372964.4501.45.camel@cgianelloni.quova.com> <20080416223643.45c3230c@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <20080416223643.45c3230c@gentoo.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: afd3e074-07a8-4f31-8348-d3e769359884 X-Archives-Hash: c332288f05b39ea822226c52621bd7c3 Samuli Suominen wrote: > Wed, 16 Apr 2008 12:09:24 -0700 > Chris Gianelloni kirjoitti: > >> On Wed, 2008-04-16 at 11:49 +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote: >>>> thirty days is the norm for the minimal period between an ebuilds >>>> last >> It is the norm. It is not a requirement. In fact, it is >> specifically a "guideline" rather than a hard rule. It is up to the >> maintainer's discretion when to ask for stabilization, just like it >> is up to the arch team's discretion when to actually *do* the >> stabilization. If you don't think that it's ready on your arch, say >> so, but be prepared to defend why you think so when the package >> maintainer, who should be much more familiar with the package, thinks >> that it is ready. Okay. So we can just agree it's better if the maintainer tells his reasons when opening the bug, to spare the later clarifications? >>>> On the other hand, maybe these early stabilisation bug reports >>>> are a sign of the times and we need to shorten the normal thirty >>>> day period, become even more of a cutting edge distro - or at >>>> least discuss the options. >>> I'd say leave the current norm and smack the misbehaving >>> maintainers :) >> Who says that they're misbehaving? Again, the maintainers probably >> know their packages better than anyone else, so why are we not >> trusting their judgement again? >> > > Thanks for this, I was going to reply in similar fashion but didn't > want to (accidentally) start flaming.. Sorry I used a harsh word myself, didn't want to flame neither. Caster -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list