From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gentoo-project+bounces-5154-garchives=archives.gentoo.org@lists.gentoo.org>
Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80])
	(using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits))
	(No client certificate requested)
	by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D179913832E
	for <garchives@archives.gentoo.org>; Mon,  8 Aug 2016 12:35:51 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 45421E0B91;
	Mon,  8 Aug 2016 12:35:50 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183])
	(using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits))
	(No client certificate requested)
	by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 59E50E0B90
	for <gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org>; Mon,  8 Aug 2016 12:35:49 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [IPv6:2a00:1398:4:0:6af7:28ff:fe2a:6521] (unknown [IPv6:2a00:1398:4:0:6af7:28ff:fe2a:6521])
	(using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits))
	(No client certificate requested)
	(Authenticated sender: marecki)
	by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A96573409A4
	for <gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org>; Mon,  8 Aug 2016 12:35:46 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] Call for agenda items - Council meeting
 2016-08-14
To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org
References: <2e11e445-c25b-b7f2-def1-99aed92308b6@gentoo.org>
 <20160804162443.GA7048@whubbs1.gaikai.biz>
 <20160804231224.7b7462168f1d23e88fe4135c@gentoo.org>
 <20160804222234.GA8357@whubbs1.gaikai.biz>
 <CAGfcS_=TwWJxjh+PUninJssMAVakUaRA5WGZ5cbSwz+XR0qQyA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20160805022658.GA15727@linux1>
 <CAGfcS_kBsnFc9T7qdHX4Eo7X=vRBmnU2V+1xeEihpaBpd9DsYg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20160805142859.GA19008@linux1>
 <CAGfcS_nQd=PncvZ-PpuAjRFNvp4p-8H=03YEmducme=vEBuhZA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20160805153658.GA11058@whubbs1.gaikai.biz>
From: Marek Szuba <marecki@gentoo.org>
Message-ID: <52993bd4-afc9-197e-acda-96db413e6608@gentoo.org>
Date: Mon, 8 Aug 2016 14:35:36 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/45.2.0
Precedence: bulk
List-Post: <mailto:gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gentoo-project+help@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gentoo-project+unsubscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gentoo-project+subscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Id: Gentoo Project discussion list <gentoo-project.gentoo.org>
X-BeenThere: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org
Reply-To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20160805153658.GA11058@whubbs1.gaikai.biz>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256;
 protocol="application/pgp-signature";
 boundary="0krXkMu03Oq97lW5GE7ap5AQlVab89HEU"
X-Archives-Salt: 528ace48-2b6c-465d-9935-e69a4f3a1727
X-Archives-Hash: 1bf7b41fa35536884c282a4cf08abce9

This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156)
--0krXkMu03Oq97lW5GE7ap5AQlVab89HEU
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="tJ8UwlbgElExAm2UOgrbXppwdP7M3eHKK"
From: Marek Szuba <marecki@gentoo.org>
To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org
Message-ID: <52993bd4-afc9-197e-acda-96db413e6608@gentoo.org>
Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] Call for agenda items - Council meeting
 2016-08-14
References: <2e11e445-c25b-b7f2-def1-99aed92308b6@gentoo.org>
 <20160804162443.GA7048@whubbs1.gaikai.biz>
 <20160804231224.7b7462168f1d23e88fe4135c@gentoo.org>
 <20160804222234.GA8357@whubbs1.gaikai.biz>
 <CAGfcS_=TwWJxjh+PUninJssMAVakUaRA5WGZ5cbSwz+XR0qQyA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20160805022658.GA15727@linux1>
 <CAGfcS_kBsnFc9T7qdHX4Eo7X=vRBmnU2V+1xeEihpaBpd9DsYg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20160805142859.GA19008@linux1>
 <CAGfcS_nQd=PncvZ-PpuAjRFNvp4p-8H=03YEmducme=vEBuhZA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20160805153658.GA11058@whubbs1.gaikai.biz>
In-Reply-To: <20160805153658.GA11058@whubbs1.gaikai.biz>

--tJ8UwlbgElExAm2UOgrbXppwdP7M3eHKK
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Fri, Aug 05, 2016 at 10:36:41AM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote:

> No argument, but if you actually asked stable users I'm not convinced
> that they'd prefer less-tested recent packages over well-tested older
> ones.  Anything to get things fresher is good, but there probably
> needs to be some kind of sanity check.
My two cents on the subject. Perhaps I am odd in this but in spite of
having been messing with ebuild development I keep my Gentoo systems
mostly stable - and I definitely prefer keeping it this way. This might
perhaps have something to do with the fact I do not really need the
latest and supposedly greatest versions of all packages, for instance
the amd64 box I am writing this on has only got 15 entries (plus
dependencies of those) in my "version bump" Portage keyword files.

That said, the situation gets much worse for packages which can be found
*only* in ~arch - on the same box the "not in stable" keyword file
contains 72 entries. Only a few of these have been orphaned so I guess I
could always submit a lot of STABLEREQs but telling the truth, the
number has really discouraged me.

Bottom line: I would say we do need some way of streamlining ebuild
stabilisation.

Cheers,
--=20
MS



--tJ8UwlbgElExAm2UOgrbXppwdP7M3eHKK--

--0krXkMu03Oq97lW5GE7ap5AQlVab89HEU
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2
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=3Hmq
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--0krXkMu03Oq97lW5GE7ap5AQlVab89HEU--