hasufell posted on Sun, 10 Mar 2013 19:11:52 +0100 as excerpted: > I was told a while back (I might still have it in irc logs), that 30 > days is NOT a rule. It's common sense, but in the end the maintainer > decides when to request stabilization, no one else.
I can confirm the 30-day-guideline policy was just that, a maintainer- discretion guideline, back in 2005/2006 or so when I first became aware of the concept via discussion. It was explained as maintainer knows their packages best, with the caveat that arch-teams also knew their archs best and could choose not to stabilize right away if they decided the request wasn't appropriate for their arch. I've seen no council, etc. decision changing that, over the years. Sometime a bit thereafter, various understaffed archs began to yield stabilizing authority to non-arch-team maintainers on a package-by- package basis, generally with at least the requirement that said maintainer actually had access to and had tested on that arch. AFAIK, before that maintainers weren't to stabilize at all on archs they weren't team members of, but they could still do so if they were a member of the arch-team, provided of course that they were following arch-team policy in the process. Meanwhile, jer's explanation, that on an arch where the package was not previously stable, there could be no stable users of the app to see regressions, so straight to stable makes a bit more sense, makes perfect sense to me. =:^) If I'm arguably too verbose, vapier's arguably not verbose enough. Had he just said something like either of these instead of simply punting with his replies... I guess it would have stopped there. -- Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman
