2010-06-27 17:04:45 Markos Chandras napisał(a): > Hi > > As many of you have already noticed, there are some arches that are quite > slow on stabilizations. This leads to deprecated stabilizations e.g a > package is stabilized after 60 days which makes that version of > the specific package obsolete and not worth to stabilize anymore. > > I would suggest to introduce a new rule where a stabilization bug may close > after 30 days. Arches that fail to stabilize it within this timeframe > they will simply don't have this package stable for them. > > Moreover, slow arches introduce another problem as well. If a package is > marked stabled for their arch, but this package is quite old, and they fail to > stabilize a new version, we ( as maintainers ) can't drop the very old > ( and obsolete ) version of this package because we somehow will break > the stable tree for these arches. How should we act in this case? > Keep the old version around forever just to say that "hey, they do have > a stable version for our exotic arch". > > 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. > > Thoughts?
+1. The period of waiting might be extended to 60 days. This period should be counted from the first ignored stabilization request. Stabilizations of some packages are filed e.g. once per month and some architectures don't manage to stabilize older versions before stabilization requests of new versions. -- Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
