-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jeroen Roovers wrote:
> I have seen many Perl virtuals go straight to stable and haven't ever
> experienced any adverse effects. :)
well, that's the idea :) But like I think it was Graham said in another
subthread of this, perl team's virtuals only go
"Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> for a virtual pointing to packages foo and bar, only one of them needs
> to be stable before the virtual can be marked as stable, right?
> So your above comment should read "if a virtual points to packages foo
> and bar, and [either foo or
On Thu, 31 May 2007 05:28:35 -0400
Michael Cummings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> > So, only this reply.
> >
> > May I conclude that nobody objects to the above?
I think marking virtuals is OK. If you cannot mark them be
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Michael Cummings wrote:
> Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>> So, only this reply.
>
>> May I conclude that nobody objects to the above?
>
>> Ulrich
>
> Wearing only my perl team hat, it would seem to lowly me that if a
> virtual points to packages foo and bar
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> So, only this reply.
>
> May I conclude that nobody objects to the above?
>
> Ulrich
Wearing only my perl team hat, it would seem to lowly me that if a
virtual points to packages foo and bar, and both foo and bar were tested
> On Wed, 23 May 2007, Christian Faulhammer wrote:
> Petteri Räty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> Ulrich Mueller kirjoitti:
>>> The point of my question was more if the usual rules apply, i.e.:
>>> keywording and stabilising only by arch teams; wait one month
>>> before the package can go stable.
>>
Petteri Räty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> The month is not set in stone. About who marks them, it's probably
> best to get the opinion of the arch teams. I don't think they will
> object to normal developers marking them. Arch teams: what do you
> think?
Speaking for x86/amd64 and Emacs...I am ok with
