El jue, 24-11-2011 a las 12:12 -0500, Rich Freeman escribió: > On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 11:35 AM, Ian Stakenvicius <a...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > .should ~arch packages with no maintainer really be moved to stable?* > > > > (* assuming no other outside forces, like it's a dep of something else > > that needs to go stable) > > I support stabilizing bug-free newer versions of maintainer-needed > packages that already have stable versions. I'm not sure I'd extend > that to stabilizing packages that have no stable versions already. >
I agree with stabling newer version but NOT to stable maintainer-needed packages that has no stable version currently :) > I see getting stable users on the ~arch version as a win-win since it > means less maintenance of older version (without a maintainer), and > will likely give the stable user a more stable experience in reality > than what they already have. > I have also seen some maintainer-needed packages need to get a newer version stable to fix some old opened bugs > Those benefits don't exist for a package that has no stable versions > to begin with. > > Rich > >
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
