On Friday 16 September 2005 04:44 pm, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 16:33:13 -0400 Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > | ok, e17 packages dont count here. however, your hardcore view i > | still dont buy. how about the baselayout-1.9.x -> baselayout-1.11.x > | stabilization process ? are you telling me that arch teams should > | have had the power to move those into stable without talking to the > | maintainer ? baselayout may be a core package, but if you continue > | with your hard rule here, then it doesnt matter. > > I'm saying that arch teams should be allowed to mark it stable if they > think it's appropriate. Not that it must be moved to stable after $x > days, but that it can be at the arch team's discretion. And any arch > team which is silly enough to mark a broken baselayout stable has far > bigger problems anyway...
baselayout is an example, any package can be used here (although not many are as critical) i'm saying that the maintainer may have a certain idea of when the package is ready for stable (a target feature set, working out certain quirks, etc...). your current hard view does not allow for that. for example, i had an arch maintainer one time mark bash-3 stable before base-system was ready for it (readline, baselayout, etc... were going to be stabilized together). i smacked them hard for it, but if we went with this hard view, it would have been perfectly acceptable behavior. -mike -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
