* Re: [gentoo-dev] making the stable tree more up-to-date
@ 2011-12-16 13:27 99% ` "Paweł Hajdan, Jr."
0 siblings, 0 replies; 1+ results
From: "Paweł Hajdan, Jr." @ 2011-12-16 13:27 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-dev
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2155 bytes --]
On 12/16/11 11:42 AM, justin wrote:
> I really like that you open all those bugs. But it makes no sense to
> add arches after a "time out". At least not after a such a short
> one.
I'm sorry this has annoyed/upset you. Let me just point out some facts:
- in November I first wrote about this new "more stabilizations" thing,
and included a list of ~800 packages, including many sci- ones
(<http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_a8d47428737e600238e3ad3d60f79208.xml>).
I don't remember any complains from the sci- maintainers then.
- people complain that a week-long timeout is too short, while after I
CC arches the answer often comes within minutes.
- actually in this case you've said "go ahead" for the bugs filed (thank
you!), so I don't fully understand the concerns here
- the bugs get filed when a package's most recent version has spent 6
months in ~arch, has _no_ open bugs, and is not a beta/alpha/rc/whatever
version. Many packages for which I filed bugs spent in ~arch a year or more.
> The maintainer is responsible for the package, that means it is
> their responsibility to decide that a package should go stable.
Packages with stable versions a year behind suggest this is not always
the case. Furthermore, most maintainers are happy about those
stabilizations (or tools), and users also like it.
> In addition they have to make the package fit to the standards that
> the arch teams request.
There are standards and nits. We frequently stabilize a package if only
nits are present.
> So as long as you don't review the packages yourself, consider a
> different proceeding than this timeout.
See the conditions above that packages have to meet to be included in
the stabilization list. I consider that an adequate review, and I know
arch developers and testers who look at the ebuilds.
It's always possible to close the bug if the package is deemed not ready.
> Please remove all added arches from the packages maintained by all
> sci* teams.
I can do that, but are you sure? I noted you've commented "go ahead"
on many of those (thank you!) - how about those bugs?
[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 203 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [relevance 99%]
Results 1-1 of 1 | reverse | options above
-- pct% links below jump to the message on this page, permalinks otherwise --
2011-11-21 8:41 [gentoo-dev] making the stable tree more up-to-date "Paweł Hajdan, Jr."
2011-12-16 10:42 ` justin
2011-12-16 13:27 99% ` "Paweł Hajdan, Jr."
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox