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 1RbYEJ-0004dG-3m for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Fri, 16 Dec 2011 13:53:43 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id C015F21C1B2; Fri, 16 Dec 2011 13:53:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-ey0-f181.google.com (mail-ey0-f181.google.com [209.85.215.181]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B99E421C158 for ; Fri, 16 Dec 2011 13:53:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: by eaaj12 with SMTP id j12so3492299eaa.40 for ; Fri, 16 Dec 2011 05:53:05 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; 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; bh=R38WS5J7wEMROw3dbghF1tahbT3+VA0ikaqgrTDW2u8=; b=C1WaocN+OsN8ly1JsbjJunzSgAFFkQXPwUm7soKJQVyplIwET8oqsBMsiYRsVkoVK/ nHqwaNzfd8z4yDerzVG0d2ScTL8WKsbQRvpKPkqRdWXUYXCr5ywqI5RIhxrZuGPs16+y NmSEYEoqU3hG8s1/CKjpiEnSerPxxZCMkIOtw= 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 Received: by 10.205.139.66 with SMTP id iv2mr3003985bkc.27.1324043584921; Fri, 16 Dec 2011 05:53:04 -0800 (PST) Sender: freemanrich@gmail.com Received: by 10.204.121.2 with HTTP; Fri, 16 Dec 2011 05:53:04 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <4EEB4742.5000302@gentoo.org> References: <4ECA0EA3.8020407@gentoo.org> <4EEB2087.2050608@gentoo.org> <4EEB4742.5000302@gentoo.org> Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2011 08:53:04 -0500 X-Google-Sender-Auth: P_o_sDiyQkYp_PQz3R-KwRWOs1c Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] making the stable tree more up-to-date From: Rich Freeman To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Archives-Salt: 5e2afe9b-ffdf-4764-82de-c213c65a2ad4 X-Archives-Hash: d21e470c1c956a928eec0522bcd7aa78 On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 8:27 AM, "Pawe=C5=82 Hajdan, Jr." wrote: > - people complain that a week-long timeout is too short, while after I > CC arches the answer often comes within minutes. So, I agree with pretty-much everything you said, and I completely agree that stable-by-default, object-if-you-care is the right move. That said, there is probably room for debate over the length of time we leave the bug open. Maybe a week isn't quite long enough - maybe two weeks is better. Then again, if I as a maintainer had reservations I'd be very likely to at least post a comment within a week even if I couldn't actually resolve the issue decisively in that time. Rich