From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: 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 4C8FD13832E for ; Thu, 4 Aug 2016 17:09:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id CDB77E0854; Thu, 4 Aug 2016 17:09:25 +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 45B99E0852 for ; Thu, 4 Aug 2016 17:09:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-wm0-f46.google.com (mail-wm0-f46.google.com [74.125.82.46]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: djc) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E0BC8340C19 for ; Thu, 4 Aug 2016 17:09:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-wm0-f46.google.com with SMTP id q128so1435028wma.1 for ; Thu, 04 Aug 2016 10:09:21 -0700 (PDT) X-Gm-Message-State: AEkoous3v+WlX0zPXT7bIM9ryTyrCcbJeHPCC625gs3n74EKj1VYPjf46iMgIdKeojhem3c5f2GhTwAh0Ysk0g== X-Received: by 10.28.9.67 with SMTP id 64mr76745411wmj.36.1470330558933; Thu, 04 Aug 2016 10:09:18 -0700 (PDT) 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 Received: by 10.28.87.135 with HTTP; Thu, 4 Aug 2016 10:08:58 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20160804162443.GA7048@whubbs1.gaikai.biz> References: <2e11e445-c25b-b7f2-def1-99aed92308b6@gentoo.org> <20160804162443.GA7048@whubbs1.gaikai.biz> From: Dirkjan Ochtman Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2016 19:08:58 +0200 X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] Call for agenda items - Council meeting 2016-08-14 To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Archives-Salt: f604cd45-041c-41fd-80c1-c33ce09379c8 X-Archives-Hash: 802eb3facb4531f1f0a6b5e7b052019e On Thu, Aug 4, 2016 at 6:24 PM, William Hubbs wrote: > I can think of two ways we can improve our situation. > > We can allow maintainers to stabilize new versions of certain types of > packages on all arches where there is a previous version of the package stable > without filing stable requests. This would take a significant load off > of the arch teams. > > For packages that do not fit the first group, we could require stable > requests, but allow maintainers to stabilize the new versions after a > timeout (I would propose 30 days). > > What do folks think? I very much agree that there's a problem. Interestingly, for the stable requests I file, it seems that e.g. alpha does better than amd64 right now, thanks to having a very dedicated arch team. It makes a lot of sense to me to allow maintainers to stabilize packages after 30 days or so at least if there is a previous stable version. Cheers, Dirkjan