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 70E541381F3 for ; Sun, 15 Sep 2013 20:18:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id BEF99E0A6F; Sun, 15 Sep 2013 20:18:43 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-ve0-f174.google.com (mail-ve0-f174.google.com [209.85.128.174]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 36ACDE0A68 for ; Sun, 15 Sep 2013 20:18:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-ve0-f174.google.com with SMTP id jy13so2338829veb.19 for ; Sun, 15 Sep 2013 13:18:42 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:content-type; bh=covvyp4wFZwazne2B92+mOT40r+vBb7cD1N0FMUY+Do=; b=CG/s8Rf4M1ZJ7lPH68Xpa9j0emI6cl/CiVoWGrnNMr/v65ZQxuO7O1yFEdKBJZq3Ll ZiiDYlapHWw6iEQJUBryxjhXk/DHZ6VN068TImVACwaFAMvOQNBQjvdwnN8XHeEs2Z3k hgmEuEy32WRQb86oXuexkE9tryzodoQn9d2RAhtIhyhjRN+28/kkkDmgM3D0BQqctuCV K/A4+rby45XBXgaCeYJQ65eHdY8nDSgsgzovCm9ZAUhUx59PVk+HSsja5HRZO594MFxx izMwzq8br6kEdvzVeGp7gM6n2Yva4Nms6DYi9gn6z+AqHOMfDDg0EXRNgXVpAt8tXcu1 //qg== Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Project discussion list X-BeenThere: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Reply-To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.52.107.134 with SMTP id hc6mr18881297vdb.10.1379276322292; Sun, 15 Sep 2013 13:18:42 -0700 (PDT) Sender: freemanrich@gmail.com Received: by 10.52.187.68 with HTTP; Sun, 15 Sep 2013 13:18:42 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20130915200856.42e8752c@googlemail.com> References: <21020.30575.805569.383992@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de> <20130829152248.GA3432@shimane.bonyari.local> <1377796652.5477.15.camel@localhost> <20130915200856.42e8752c@googlemail.com> Date: Sun, 15 Sep 2013 16:18:42 -0400 X-Google-Sender-Auth: sr8G_xnOxbg-Hj0o3XBFY9z0fOU Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] Call for agenda items - Council meeting 2013-09-10 From: Rich Freeman To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Archives-Salt: a5e718b2-49aa-475c-bd32-2bff67f5e643 X-Archives-Hash: 8259f4298890c482f9ff98be41935104 On Sun, Sep 15, 2013 at 3:08 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Sun, 15 Sep 2013 11:03:28 -0400 > Rich Freeman wrote: >> So, how about this as a policy: >> If a maintainer has an open STABLEREQ, or a KEYWORDREQ blocking a >> pending STABLEREQ, for 90 days with archs CCed and otherwise ready to >> be stabilized, the maintainer can remove older stable versions of the >> package at their discretion. A package is considered ready to be >> stabilized if it has been in the tree for 30 days, and has no known >> major flaws on arches that upstream considers supported. > > The danger of this approach is that it encourages arch teams to stable > even if they're not convinced something's been tested sufficiently. My understanding is that half the "stable" packages on the arches in question are only compile-tested anyway. If we do drop the keywords then users will only have the choice of running packages that aren't stable-tested at all. I don't really see my proposal as an ideal one - merely a compromise that seems better than the alternatives. The only thing that will actually improve the true quality of the minor arches is more manpower. If you're running s390/sparc/whatever then frankly there aren't really many better options out there, so you might as well pitch in and help scratch your own itch... Rich