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 E109C138247 for ; Thu, 16 Jan 2014 18:42:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id D9B58E0C2A; Thu, 16 Jan 2014 18:42:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-ie0-f179.google.com (mail-ie0-f179.google.com [209.85.223.179]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E9919E0B1D for ; Thu, 16 Jan 2014 18:42:41 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-ie0-f179.google.com with SMTP id tp5so4311558ieb.10 for ; Thu, 16 Jan 2014 10:42:41 -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=0jKKBA7a6zK4fKNGcIOiO9e5s8hI/hI1Hw8IZrLnTQE=; b=tV1dBH7N9L/lrEW4t+VmgkGLUZd5Dl7rODG6hrwtFezphQqaD6I/Y+kJQtx+7dg+iu lN9TXsqcM6/3mGcQlOYIloFjrhCbY3csaVwVzGBBpANUEQYq/rj+9T+/lVo29+1LNxMd 9LFyAXieV8yCV1rr4TTfpzeTMFsZXjH5LdYK3loWGFK0XBlggys96X07LB+VS8IFzzUa SY1BK3bJeNgfcrvyd/lziT6ctE63Hnj07WtHMfm9aoBKAhfalXtS5WNPY5tr0pJmYuVX Axzv/vrWuS3JhvHUCUOBzXzvujLybhCmeVYUBkMb2OcA8mK/gn+hHUZh9qPGVZbr5J8R TIjw== 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 10.42.147.66 with SMTP id m2mr9413061icv.59.1389897761223; Thu, 16 Jan 2014 10:42:41 -0800 (PST) Sender: freemanrich@gmail.com Received: by 10.64.73.99 with HTTP; Thu, 16 Jan 2014 10:42:41 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20140116181130.24751.qmail@stuge.se> References: <20140114213719.GA2684@laptop.home> <20140115004928.1fae6bf9@TOMWIJ-GENTOO> <52D673A4.2080508@gentoo.org> <20140115180405.1cd06453@TOMWIJ-GENTOO> <52D77A35.8080509@gentoo.org> <20140116155407.13492.qmail@stuge.se> <20140116181130.24751.qmail@stuge.se> Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2014 13:42:41 -0500 X-Google-Sender-Auth: 2X3cEOYpajKD7igz7e53YFxGfZE Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: revisiting our stabilization policy From: Rich Freeman To: gentoo-dev Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Archives-Salt: 384e369d-1f6e-4f47-a846-240746197077 X-Archives-Hash: c473a782e2c393a6c37a861b98a8a998 On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 1:11 PM, Peter Stuge wrote: > I certainly don't think the work needs to go away if the work is > considered to be important. It's fine to have open bugs for years > in the absence of a good solution. I get what you're saying, though there is still a cost to leaving the bug open to years. In this case it means an old package stays in the tree marked as stable. That either costs maintainers the effort to keep it work, or they don't bother to keep in working in which case users get saddled with issues. I am completely in support of making use of the priority field - if something is causing issues by all means call attention to it. I bet it would /help/ with the problem, but it won't make it go away. Rich