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 7A2E1138A1F for ; Sun, 26 Jan 2014 11:41:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id F387FE0BAE; Sun, 26 Jan 2014 11:41:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-qa0-f42.google.com (mail-qa0-f42.google.com [209.85.216.42]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2364AE0B7F for ; Sun, 26 Jan 2014 11:41:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-qa0-f42.google.com with SMTP id k4so6097701qaq.1 for ; Sun, 26 Jan 2014 03:41:49 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:content-type; bh=N+xcaMx3BhBkTNiZXUKScJl6zxGKdQK2IEpJeqj94SY=; b=yxRQxDLLUlvenIK60vcKtuf+5mv3h4/sczo1q6Dt9aM4zU3pvh1WXdYExOHEllT5oR F73YI54czklkkY3ruKuZ/GmcEO/qelIG7aoaOwUYedaWgQHVMfrcDs4wgkoWopDLTEFy la/+8J4Zdy9KGkkmtrnGXeEDL6tDTfLOfWaZ7ahhOGg5td37QAfJdrQXWdDXtGQR4oz6 jKqmLmopZvwNmD38zyvOQN+tRNYBM9QT9n8KwXpYfOwtWVskEHzen7qonFwirPAbMooT tbfH6J6VG+XR7/LBAPkX8dk2DfQWGgHDJ7bTL5D5N8kpES+uR0i5DyD7S0EAVJZ3bn4G QgmA== 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 X-Received: by 10.140.39.212 with SMTP id v78mr23336278qgv.77.1390736509255; Sun, 26 Jan 2014 03:41:49 -0800 (PST) Sender: freemanrich@gmail.com Received: by 10.140.49.233 with HTTP; Sun, 26 Jan 2014 03:41:49 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20140126045302.14342.qmail@stuge.se> References: <20140115232804.1c26beda@kruskal.home.chead.ca> <20140116234442.27c361d1@TOMWIJ-GENTOO> <20140119143157.72fc0e91@kruskal.home.chead.ca> <20140120014713.2cafc257@TOMWIJ-GENTOO> <20140123181242.GA17827@rathaus.eclipse.co.uk> <20140123201333.71e52bfc@TOMWIJ-GENTOO> <20140124104605.GA19957@rathaus.eclipse.co.uk> <20140124192641.5677cc51@TOMWIJ-GENTOO> <20140126045302.14342.qmail@stuge.se> Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2014 06:41:49 -0500 X-Google-Sender-Auth: HEt2-qEYK7Lion7tDH1ZZOHoc7A Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: rfc: revisiting our stabilization policy From: Rich Freeman To: gentoo-dev Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Archives-Salt: 3ec1561a-5c2c-4589-8c92-011cd11f9911 X-Archives-Hash: e96b8ab0cdcfbfa23c6ae1f9a61718c0 On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 11:53 PM, Peter Stuge wrote: > Rich Freeman wrote: >> It seems like the simplest solution in these cases is to just have >> them focus on @system packages for the stable tree, and let users >> deal with more breakage outside of that set > > Why not make stable completely optional for arch teams? > Stable already is completely optional for the arch teams, and that is why we have concerns over stable requests taking forever on minor archs in the first place. If the package wasn't marked as stable in the first place the maintainer could just drop old versions anytime they saw fit, but in the cases that cause problems the arch team exercises their option to stabilize something, and then they also exercise their option to not stabilize something newer. Rich