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 DA207138247 for ; Thu, 16 Jan 2014 07:15:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 88F7FE0ABC; Thu, 16 Jan 2014 07:15:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8B951E0AA1 for ; Thu, 16 Jan 2014 07:15:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B6F0833F616 for ; Thu, 16 Jan 2014 07:15:38 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new using ClamAV at gentoo.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.747 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.747 tagged_above=-999 required=5.5 tests=[AWL=-0.420, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.325, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no 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 lmkbB6AbimO2 for ; Thu, 16 Jan 2014 07:15:33 +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 E8F1D33EEF8 for ; Thu, 16 Jan 2014 07:15:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1W3hAj-0000Pb-Qh for gentoo-dev@gentoo.org; Thu, 16 Jan 2014 08:15:25 +0100 Received: from ppp118-209-72-168.lns20.mel4.internode.on.net ([118.209.72.168]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 16 Jan 2014 08:15:25 +0100 Received: from kensington by ppp118-209-72-168.lns20.mel4.internode.on.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 16 Jan 2014 08:15:25 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org From: Michael Palimaka Subject: [gentoo-dev] Re: rfc: revisiting our stabilization policy Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2014 18:15:11 +1100 Message-ID: References: <20140114213719.GA2684@laptop.home> <52D6D489.9030302@gentoo.org> <52D77BB9.10107@gentoo.org> 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 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: ppp118-209-72-168.lns20.mel4.internode.on.net User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.2.0 In-Reply-To: <52D77BB9.10107@gentoo.org> X-Archives-Salt: ebfc50d5-251b-469a-880c-7e58889eefea X-Archives-Hash: 58a169659b6c243ea75b6d6b8e2e8e60 On 01/16/2014 05:27 PM, Sergey Popov wrote: > > Thanks, for the proposal. IIRC, there was similar backroom agreement in > some minor arches, look at how armin76 stabilized packages earlier - > sometimes he drops vast amount of keywords on ia64/sparc/m68k to > unstable in stabilization requests. > > And i think we should continue this practice. > I agree completely. The keywords on many packages are historical and do not necessarily represent the current reality. Is it really a good use of our resources to maintain stable keywords for some small auxiliary package? I think every stable request is a good opportunity for each minor arch team to review their keywords for that package.