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 EBEF31381F3 for ; Wed, 21 Aug 2013 10:43:41 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 9F557E0CA1; Wed, 21 Aug 2013 10:43:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D64D7E0C8D for ; Wed, 21 Aug 2013 10:43:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 277C933EC26 for ; Wed, 21 Aug 2013 10:43:38 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new using ClamAV at gentoo.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.955 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.955 tagged_above=-999 required=5.5 tests=[AWL=0.847, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-2.8, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=unavailable Received: from smtp.gentoo.org ([IPv6:::ffff:127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp.gentoo.org [IPv6:::ffff:127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RzHLcsBgLZyw for ; Wed, 21 Aug 2013 10:43:30 +0000 (UTC) Received: from plane.gmane.org (plane.gmane.org [80.91.229.3]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 246F9335DF3 for ; Wed, 21 Aug 2013 10:43:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1VC5sq-000641-8j for gentoo-dev@gentoo.org; Wed, 21 Aug 2013 12:43:24 +0200 Received: from ppp118-209-156-226.lns20.mel6.internode.on.net ([118.209.156.226]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 21 Aug 2013 12:43:24 +0200 Received: from kensington by ppp118-209-156-226.lns20.mel6.internode.on.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 21 Aug 2013 12:43:24 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org From: Michael Palimaka Subject: [gentoo-dev] Re: rfc: stabilization policies Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2013 20:43:09 +1000 Message-ID: References: <20130820181910.GA2204@linux1> <5213CEA2.9060505@gentoo.org> <20130820230513.25c056ff@TOMWIJ-GENTOO> <20130821123127.63183ade@TOMWIJ-GENTOO> 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 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: ppp118-209-156-226.lns20.mel6.internode.on.net User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.2; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130801 Thunderbird/17.0.8 In-Reply-To: <20130821123127.63183ade@TOMWIJ-GENTOO> X-Archives-Salt: 62d29667-78e9-4fa9-b8d0-78bc195f428f X-Archives-Hash: c1a90d0c4c90ff64b403cc4afa43fb0d On 21/08/2013 20:31, Tom Wijsman wrote: > On Wed, 21 Aug 2013 20:13:00 +1000 > Michael Palimaka wrote: > >> For those not familiar with imlate, please note that these numbers >> include packages that have never been stabilised. > > True, this brings up two questions: > > 1. How do we filter out those that were never stabilized? I don't see any option, perhaps imlate could use that improvement. > > 2. How much of those actually don't need stabilization? How much do? > Someone said to me once "everything in ~arch is a candidate for stabilisation. if it should never be stabilised, it shouldn't be in the tree." I'm not sure if I agree with that statement or not, but I suspect most things in the tree that have never been stabilised are that way simply because nobody every asked. There really is a large number of packages just rotting in ~arch though.