On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 05:38:34PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Sun, 27 Jun 2010 18:04:45 +0300 > Markos Chandras <hwoar...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > Whilst I do understand that these arches are understaffed and they > > can't keep up with the increased stabilization load like x86/amd64 > > do, I still think that slow stabilization leads to an obsolete stable > > tree which I doesn't make sense to me after all. > > Which does Gentoo care about more: slightly increased convenience for > most developers, or considerably increased inconvenience for users of > minority archs? > > -- > Ciaran McCreesh I don't follow you. Increased convenience just for the devs? How?All I want is to have packages stabled ~60 days after the initial commit on tree instead of ~5 months. If arches can't do that then I don't want to mark that obsolete package stable at all. Whats the point? Also I would prefer to be able to drop ancient stable packages from the tree even if that means that there wont be any other stable version for this package to use. I 'd prefer a working tiny stable tree than a huge ancient one
-- Markos Chandras (hwoarang) Gentoo Linux Developer Web: http://hwoarang.silverarrow.org
pgp4N7bomqPQa.pgp
Description: PGP signature
