From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1RVMet-0006cU-Ig for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Tue, 29 Nov 2011 12:19:35 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 1863721C106; Tue, 29 Nov 2011 12:19:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4972421C0A6 for ; Tue, 29 Nov 2011 12:18:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: from phjr-macbookpro.local (fi122.internetdsl.tpnet.pl [80.53.34.122]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: phajdan.jr) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 30A801B400F for ; Tue, 29 Nov 2011 12:18:16 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <4ED4CD84.5090004@gentoo.org> Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2011 13:18:12 +0100 From: =?UTF-8?B?IlBhd2XFgiBIYWpkYW4sIEpyLiI=?= User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:8.0) Gecko/20111105 Thunderbird/8.0 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] Re: making the stable tree more up-to-date References: <4ECA0EA3.8020407@gentoo.org> <20111123152036.TA0db695.tv@veller.net> <4ECE6002.5070109@gentoo.org> <4ECE725F.30307@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 1.3.3 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="------------enig4BBC4AA4A810B5224EF5996A" X-Archives-Salt: 92d49e5f-f061-4dab-8454-80737eb97c4c X-Archives-Hash: 419322e08833954a6e2c3c86a9d37492 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156) --------------enig4BBC4AA4A810B5224EF5996A Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 11/24/11 6:12 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: > I support stabilizing bug-free newer versions of maintainer-needed > packages that already have stable versions. I'm not sure I'd extend > that to stabilizing packages that have no stable versions already. > [...] > Those benefits don't exist for a package that has no stable versions > to begin with. Yup, just for clarity my script doesn't consider packages with no stable versions for stabilization candidates. --------------enig4BBC4AA4A810B5224EF5996A Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.17 (Darwin) iEYEARECAAYFAk7UzYUACgkQuUQtlDBCeQJ31gCfRKXgQpxse32pgeOo3SEwt5Jl LVgAnigKhwO2C59pCUE+B4zUeqUjORQi =zFEW -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------enig4BBC4AA4A810B5224EF5996A--