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 1N6Pdq-0004vT-V3 for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Fri, 06 Nov 2009 14:18:21 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id B0363E0A5C; Fri, 6 Nov 2009 14:18:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-pw0-f47.google.com (mail-pw0-f47.google.com [209.85.160.47]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B41DE0A5C for ; Fri, 6 Nov 2009 14:18:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: by pwj4 with SMTP id 4so709575pwj.26 for ; Fri, 06 Nov 2009 06:18:17 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:sender:received:in-reply-to :references:date:x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=h8w2Zs2JHU/ADpLDB/sbyA0M/GgnW+a0Hihhhn9DPLA=; b=tUsQc4pg3thqaQKN8ABUYzAYYaCSdb33C6CWwJqT4jYfTaz9T6tlWQ2NAziBQzwVmn 92cw/axd/XJ0dZGJ2+GB+90d+CVt9KL47XAaUCFT4SEBcDnEVS1120mlo+1FGd4j4BIk uOoqAdrBe/SulxO522E2WAhABPu7dxACETimA= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; b=b3oBsdYEhj/TOMAmPtleQ5u+v6mKUa2jkCkja1Fpq6ZjGjGUuttS/vONIInGLGOOPQ 9LlVTw2xQmq3tKHCIwBAtFgdFn9K34wgQYG/5crBIk0cctxPcBiWgcm+176DoRjasLtp Ct+WAA6ctROYPAKV3mvsB5k+1D3F1hVMd73F4= 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 Sender: nirbheek.chauhan@gmail.com Received: by 10.114.6.25 with SMTP id 25mr6810819waf.25.1257517097095; Fri, 06 Nov 2009 06:18:17 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <4AF331B0.4020108@gentoo.org> References: <200911011736.38401.Arfrever@gentoo.org> <20091102151707.0b155aab@gentoo.org> <200911021724.01069.hwoarang@gentoo.org> <20091103191005.18d98e2e@gentoo.org> <4AF1EBD8.4020502@gentoo.org> <20091104214823.64842abd@gentoo.org> <20091105091700.GA17478@eric.schwarzvogel.de> <4AF331B0.4020108@gentoo.org> Date: Fri, 6 Nov 2009 19:48:16 +0530 X-Google-Sender-Auth: 8f6b832b500d8c61 Message-ID: <8b4c83ad0911060618r2b61c4b4w51238306b9c9a437@mail.gmail.com> Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] Improve policy of stabilizations From: Nirbheek Chauhan To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Archives-Salt: df49acfd-3db5-4c16-9a6f-342702e234d2 X-Archives-Hash: bb7e779e47d1b205300d192b003955f4 On Fri, Nov 6, 2009 at 1:42 AM, Petteri R=C3=A4ty w= rote: > In the past when smaller arches were not that active we used to mark > Java packages stable after testing by at least one arch team. The > probability to find arch specific issues in something like Java is not > so high so I think arrangements like this are acceptable when the arch > teams have problems keeping up. > I think the same should be extended to other languages such as Perl and Python (unless they have portions which are C/C++) --=20 ~Nirbheek Chauhan Gentoo GNOME+Mozilla Team