On Tue, Jun 12, 2007 at 11:40:26AM +0200, cilly wrote: > In my opinion, ebuilds are removed too soon, i.e. if an ebuild gets > updated the older ebuild gets removed in the same turn. In my > opinion, it is better to keep the older ebuild around for a while > since if there are some bugs in the newer ebuild, users are able to > downgrade easily. > > My suggestion is to set up a guidline similar like it exists for > marking the ebuilds as stable (4 weeks). > > Probably, a time period for removing ebuilds would be nice to have, I > think 2 weeks would be reasonable if there aren't any known bugs of > the newer ebuild. Of course, if the newer ebuild has bugs, which do > not exist in the older ebuild the older ebuild should still be kept > to let the user be able to choose, which version they want. > > What do you think?
I think that setting arbitrary guidelines that try to rule every situation is just *plain* wrong. Some of the packages I maintain are better removed when a new maintenance version is released. And I plan to keep it that way :) As usual, deep known of the package you are removing and common sense is way better than guidelines 'to rule them all'. - ferdy -- Fernando J. Pereda Garcimartín 20BB BDC3 761A 4781 E6ED ED0B 0A48 5B0C 60BD 28D4
pgppo3ZKWtso0.pgp
Description: PGP signature
