On 03/10/2013 02:11 PM, hasufell wrote: > On 03/10/2013 07:04 PM, Jeroen Roovers wrote: >> On Sun, 3 Mar 2013 12:44:18 +0100 >> Tomáš Chvátal <tomas.chva...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> If I remember correctly the damn rule is to put it for 30 days into >>> testing, and as you said there was no previous version on arm so users >>> could've reported some issues, i agree that sometimes you have to >>> ignore the rules to really fix stable, but was this such case for >>> sure? >> >> I've done straight to stable keywording _many_ times. The rationale is >> that with no previous version stable for a particular architecture, >> there really are no users who could see _regressions_, hence waiting >> the nominal thirty days is meaningless in this case. >> >> >> jer >> > > another note: > 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. > > Blame people if they break something, not if they ignore soft policies. >
What's broken is the expectation that the package was tested by more than one person. The "soft policy" is here: http://devmanual.gentoo.org/keywording/index.html#moving-from-~arch-to-arch And you're right, ~30 days is simply a suggestion. But the rule is "The package has spent a reasonable amount of time in ~arch first." A further non-suggestion is "The package must be widely tested." If a package is marked stable, I expect it to have seen some testing, and not just on the maintainers personal machine. I don't rely 100% on the stable designation, but it does affect the amount of testing that I personally will do. Please help me do my job by not perverting the meaning of stable.
