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 iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJXqHydAAoJEMpAgHSxKFzK2vkP/1DR/0AGta7PJTbfdsNqAV31 HKhY04zd8yDctsiQNbxwEu2fsnS3GMPnmsqZ/9y4B9JLNjzBn/btzHcnTYEzarTi RUqn9n/BfmOip4aZ/C/8DE2/fdSztSanO4SLAfhDupKjEBN7TOwLU7GA1N4n0S4r UwZGfHCtjo4pCHiV1PJmjhHkxjucml7kxsmf8QJx0g9EywuQarL5ztb7hFkmo2tz vGvjBRlEN89jIVeOKUE2A3X9h++Q/5elhOjQmhdFEIbw05r57sJ8pH8gVCqeBEhE G7SvBmGM9NQ2RtCJlXen4TtX21T6Unt6h4cuLoW7Oc4VFmvbclatQ/xqjLpEZKwH +qw3wxDbcC5Fq1mOoDsxjVAZ9TCZRlHmxOIelMZty4944/UY2h76HICL0/9KwvVJ ZoQ4VV5sCV9wrcfuqg4Bl7h2xxY4/ETawNKPwtdLLP7f1zBtY3d3MW0J9lhE3Oui 9vjDz+AIeOKxQ8FRU66oSQ9500Xw5UxEQkHJvNJzb2YG9o5daMpMPT00QZODy1js 9jt4zhHK9wRaQiSSxuJZDd/5cj5ezus5KBLfzdC5jMJ8QYV6w47t5GydOH9hxsBt tFHxNXEEaGjIgHZJiB2nW7V3eFPYYvMIQ6SyCpdLBKg3hfpY5hXHH+7p37I3GhZh IyJEoJJyQHf4uHhSi4rj =3Hmq -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --0krXkMu03Oq97lW5GE7ap5AQlVab89HEU--