-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Mart Raudsepp wrote: > Hey, > > On E, 2007-06-18 at 11:34 -0700, Chris Gianelloni wrote: >> Also, remember that stabilization is *supposed* to be about the >> stabilization of the *ebuild* and not the *package* itself. > > This sentence made me personally start looking at the policy in a > different way as far as stabilization and waiting for a set amount of > days is concerned. > > Does this mean that, when for example there are pure bug fix releases in > GNOME packages with no ebuild changes whatsoever, then we can consider, > without hesitation so much, to ask stabilization of these much sooner > than 30 days? Or the new version just has updated translations, which is > cool too (unless it's a very long building package) to get into the > hands of our world-wide users earlier with no practical chance of > breakage. > > Right now it is a rare exception to ask stabilization earlier than 30 > days, but should we do that more often for cases like I made an example > of (upstream following a strict bug-fixes/translations only rule as well > for the versions in question)? > >
I use to ask for stabilization of the new version of a package immediately if it is supposed to fix an *important* security problem in the package, so that way we spread as soon as possible the new fix to our users. Not sure if this is documented somewhere as an exception to the 30 days rule, but i have not had problems so far and the stabilization teams have been willing to help me in such a cases. Regards, - -- Luis F. Araujo "araujo at gentoo.org" Gentoo Linux -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.4 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFGd15QaTNpke9pJcURAiIeAJ9IP9To0xwSU86eWyjOO+N6WQCQjwCeIXxG +wFGE1phct8Dtzg/0P33+Dk= =tcgj -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
