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 <gentoo-dev+bounces-48731-garchives=archives.gentoo.org@lists.gentoo.org>)
	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 <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Thu, 24 Nov 2011 17:12:33 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by bkaq10 with SMTP id q10so3834119bka.40
        for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; 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: <mailto:gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gentoo-dev+help@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+unsubscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+subscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail <gentoo-dev.gentoo.org>
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: <CAGfcS_nWJ7LRYTzexE2E++JqEECw2pOrgYEipB2VSiw+hffD2A@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: making the stable tree more up-to-date
From: Rich Freeman <rich0@gentoo.org>
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 <axs@gentoo.org> 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