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 46CF7138247 for ; Wed, 15 Jan 2014 02:22:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id E5C43E0AAB; Wed, 15 Jan 2014 02:21:54 +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 E802DE0A83 for ; Wed, 15 Jan 2014 02:21:53 +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 1269033EEB4 for ; Wed, 15 Jan 2014 02:21:52 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <52D5F0BF.3060305@gentoo.org> Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2014 21:21:51 -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> <52D5BDAD.4030808@gentoo.org> <20140114231113.GA3393@laptop.home> <52D5DAB6.1000609@gentoo.org> <20140115020802.700b1568@TOMWIJ-GENTOO> <52D5E03C.3010900@gentoo.org> <20140115022337.4336618d@TOMWIJ-GENTOO> <52D5E60A.80600@gentoo.org> <20140115020934.GA3886@laptop.home> In-Reply-To: <20140115020934.GA3886@laptop.home> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 978a4a8b-a0e4-4b10-a916-04f4c2f32b74 X-Archives-Hash: 38bd86eabc2800b9afe70e38eab4ee9f On 01/14/2014 09:09 PM, William Hubbs wrote: > > After the package has been sitting in ~arch for 90 days with an open > stable request with no blockers that the arch team has not taken any > action on. We are not talking about randomly yanking package versions, > just doing something when arch teams are not responsive, and it seems > that the cleanest thing to do would be to remove the old versions. > People running stable value... stability. I would much rather wait for the arch teams to get un-busy than to be forced to upgrade to something untested. Why would I care if it takes another month? Strictly from a user's perspective. I don't, unless I do, in which case I know that I do, and I could just keyword the thing if I wanted to.