From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org) by nuthatch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1H2s3Z-0003qJ-Fq for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Fri, 05 Jan 2007 16:36:37 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.8/8.13.8) with SMTP id l05GSf05004890; Fri, 5 Jan 2007 16:28:41 GMT Received: from mail90.megamailservers.com (mail90.megamailservers.com [216.251.36.90]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id l05GOCJv014350 for ; Fri, 5 Jan 2007 16:24:13 GMT X-Authenticated-User: sdibb.knightsbrg.com Received: from [192.168.1.241] (64.50.56.200.ptr.us.xo.net [64.50.56.200] (may be forged)) (authenticated bits=0) by mail90.megamailservers.com (8.13.6.20060614/8.13.1) with ESMTP id l05GO90D004294 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Fri, 5 Jan 2007 11:24:11 -0500 Message-ID: <459E7BA9.4040207@gentoo.org> Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2007 09:24:09 -0700 From: Steve Dibb User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.8 (X11/20061110) Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] How packages are made stable References: <459D686C.7050304@gentoo.org> <459E61BB.2060208@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 39f7a971-170a-4df0-b990-9e1ee8a64f0c X-Archives-Hash: 354338127f6cdb154c28397db66cdd1e Robert Cernansky wrote: > On Fri, 05 Jan 2007 07:33:31 -0700 Steve Dibb wrote: > > >> Andrey Gerasimenko wrote: >> >>> On Fri, 05 Jan 2007 11:49:30 +0300, Robert Cernansky >>> wrote: >>> >>> >>>> On Thu, 04 Jan 2007 13:49:48 -0700 Steve Dibb wrote: >>>> >>>>> Most stuff doesnt get marked stable mostly because there aren't >>>>> any stable requests. >>>>> >>>> Stabilisation bug it not a requirement. >>>> >> Actually, everything I said in that last email was a little off. >> Stabilization bugs are required because ultimately it is the >> architecture team that is going to mark it stable, not the >> developer. There are some cases where things can go directly stable >> (such as security vulnerabilities), but those are the exception and >> not the rule. >> >> So if you want something stable, do all the checks, file a bug, and >> copy all the arches that it applies to. You can see which ones use >> it on http://packages.gentoo.org/ >> > > I perfectly agree with your previous e-mail where you sayng that "it's > a notice telling the developers that hey, someone wants it marked > stable." And I agree that stabilisation bugs are helping developers > and everybody should write it when appropriate. But it should not be > a requirement. > Thanks for dragging this out Robert, because I again need to make a correction. AFAIK, there is no policy saying that there's a requirement for there to be a stablization bug. However, since it is the architecture team's final decision, filing bugs is just the preferred way of notifying many at once. > In documentation [1] it is not mentioned a stabilisation bug. Is there > any other documentation specific for architecture team that have > higher priorty? > Yah, that doc doesn't really go into detail other than saying if the maintainer thinks it's okay to mark stable. Again, strictly speaking that is correct, since the maintainer should check off if the ebuild is okay to mark stable, and then the arches decide if they want to do it or not. The doc doesn't go into much detail. It looks like there's no real strict policy on the matter, and the de facto way of doing things has worked pretty well besides that. :) Steve -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list