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 45597198005 for ; Mon, 11 Mar 2013 06:38:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id A4ED8E05E4; Mon, 11 Mar 2013 06:38:44 +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 BC9F3E058A for ; Mon, 11 Mar 2013 06:38:43 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [10.169.207.211] (unknown [85.76.52.5]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: ssuominen) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 552B733D8A9 for ; Mon, 11 Mar 2013 06:38:42 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <513D7B52.7070309@gentoo.org> Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2013 08:36:02 +0200 From: Samuli Suominen User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130309 Thunderbird/17.0.4 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> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Archives-Salt: 2070e1ac-7ed6-4d85-9792-32dac781130f X-Archives-Hash: 00d38249f14afead9e1c54a1f0e05b04 On 10/03/13 20:04, 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. agreed, this is how I work too