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 607A5198005 for ; Sun, 10 Mar 2013 18:12:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 5D783E0773; Sun, 10 Mar 2013 18:11:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 748E9E0700 for ; Sun, 10 Mar 2013 18:11:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.4.5] (blfd-5d822394.pool.mediaWays.net [93.130.35.148]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: hasufell) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id DDDC833D3D6 for ; Sun, 10 Mar 2013 18:11:54 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <513CCCE8.9040909@gentoo.org> Date: Sun, 10 Mar 2013 19:11:52 +0100 From: hasufell User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130305 Thunderbird/17.0.3 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: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in dev-libs/confuse: confuse-2.7.ebuild ChangeLog References: <20130301081602.D1F5D2171D@flycatcher.gentoo.org> <201303022057.29177.vapier@gentoo.org> <201303022144.36781.vapier@gentoo.org> <20130310190418.40e7c3aa@marga.jer-c2.orkz.net> In-Reply-To: <20130310190418.40e7c3aa@marga.jer-c2.orkz.net> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Archives-Salt: e6723aad-be00-4b47-8b71-1d1fa84e4bc6 X-Archives-Hash: f1b669b252fcd704c1b880606ff8687b On 03/10/2013 07:04 PM, Jeroen Roovers wrote: > On Sun, 3 Mar 2013 12:44:18 +0100 > Tomáš Chvátal wrote: > >> If I remember correctly the damn rule is to put it for 30 days into >> testing, and as you said there was no previous version on arm so users >> could've reported some issues, i agree that sometimes you have to >> ignore the rules to really fix stable, but was this such case for >> sure? > > I've done straight to stable keywording _many_ times. The rationale is > that with no previous version stable for a particular architecture, > there really are no users who could see _regressions_, hence waiting > the nominal thirty days is meaningless in this case. > > > jer > another note: I was told a while back (I might still have it in irc logs), that 30 days is NOT a rule. It's common sense, but in the end the maintainer decides when to request stabilization, no one else. Blame people if they break something, not if they ignore soft policies.