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 27F65138247 for ; Tue, 14 Jan 2014 22:44:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id B5DC0E09B9; Tue, 14 Jan 2014 22:44:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8C853E09A7 for ; Tue, 14 Jan 2014 22:44:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.1.100] (c-68-49-223-78.hsd1.md.comcast.net [68.49.223.78]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: mjo) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 901BA33F631 for ; Tue, 14 Jan 2014 22:43:59 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <52D5BDAD.4030808@gentoo.org> Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2014 17:43:57 -0500 From: Michael Orlitzky User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.2.0 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] rfc: revisiting our stabilization policy References: <20140114213719.GA2684@laptop.home> <52D5B2CA.5030407@gentoo.org> <20140114223312.GA3337@laptop.home> In-Reply-To: <20140114223312.GA3337@laptop.home> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: c6e1aa97-52c5-4a8d-9432-0c13f8936d70 X-Archives-Hash: abbee723875d75bba987ef0cbb4589f0 On 01/14/2014 05:33 PM, William Hubbs wrote: > On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 04:57:30PM -0500, Michael Orlitzky wrote: >> On 01/14/2014 04:37 PM, William Hubbs wrote: >>> >>> 2. I would like to see the policy below applied to all arch's [2]. >> >> [ ] Yup >> [X] Nope > > The reverse of this would be to let maintainers stabilize on all arch's > after 90 days, then they are allowed to remove all but the latest stable > version. This isn't good though because maintainers would be stabilizing > packages on arch's where they can't test. > > The stable tree is significantly behind because the arch teams are so > short staffed, and this prooposal is an attempt to fix that. It's attempting to fix a headache with a bullet. The arch teams are lagging behind, you're annoyed, I get it. Give 'em hell. But don't break stable to make a point. For users, both options are worse than the status quo.