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 1RTcrD-00031G-1L for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Thu, 24 Nov 2011 17:13:07 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 1788821C051; Thu, 24 Nov 2011 17:12:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-bw0-f53.google.com (mail-bw0-f53.google.com [209.85.214.53]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E9D9E21C04B for ; Thu, 24 Nov 2011 17:12:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: by bkaq10 with SMTP id q10so3834119bka.40 for ; Thu, 24 Nov 2011 09:12:33 -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; bh=McNtGYKmN9CTnNxQlPGDuWvvBHL+Ob76g6KL0rFL+rc=; b=pj2lfDLumCpaNlVgrkitykP3hU3jqHpCj8UYUNIziL+fvA1KA6xj8AVeua9/H5qFj3 7Kwas8REBaQaDM29QHBEXijNGgg5e1onxSh6n/GrhvhIEgoDOlxRZ/G0O/06N0IUCKa4 mKogQD/qzAtEZG7C0P6g+qKsFg0CnclL+Azdo= 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 10.205.123.3 with SMTP id gi3mr30796260bkc.112.1322154753033; Thu, 24 Nov 2011 09:12:33 -0800 (PST) Sender: freemanrich@gmail.com Received: by 10.204.121.2 with HTTP; Thu, 24 Nov 2011 09:12:32 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <4ECE725F.30307@gentoo.org> References: <4ECA0EA3.8020407@gentoo.org> <20111123152036.TA0db695.tv@veller.net> <4ECE6002.5070109@gentoo.org> <4ECE725F.30307@gentoo.org> Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2011 12:12:32 -0500 X-Google-Sender-Auth: WpM5Davss854VHP6WWXljI8oeZM Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: making the stable tree more up-to-date From: Rich Freeman To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Archives-Salt: 5ccbdb9c-71ad-40d2-b44f-b3c5fd367e8a X-Archives-Hash: bb3e3226522afb52959f4d62ad989995 On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 11:35 AM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: > .should ~arch packages with no maintainer really be moved to stable?* > > (* assuming no other outside forces, like it's a dep of something else > that needs to go stable) I support stabilizing bug-free newer versions of maintainer-needed packages that already have stable versions. I'm not sure I'd extend that to stabilizing packages that have no stable versions already. I see getting stable users on the ~arch version as a win-win since it means less maintenance of older version (without a maintainer), and will likely give the stable user a more stable experience in reality than what they already have. Those benefits don't exist for a package that has no stable versions to begin with. Rich