Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: making the stable tree more up-to-date
On 11/24/11 6:12 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: 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. [...] Those benefits don't exist for a package that has no stable versions to begin with. Yup, just for clarity my script doesn't consider packages with no stable versions for stabilization candidates. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: making the stable tree more up-to-date
On 11/23/11 3:27 PM, Torsten Veller wrote: What do you expect to happen with bugs assigned to maintainer-needed? I'm going to CC arches myself after a while, similarly as with bugs with other maintainers who don't respond. I don't know if any of the packages is really good to be stabilized. Maybe they are better than the current stable version, maybe not. 1. Note that my script only considers packages with no open bugs. 2. It's good for stable to be closer to ~arch, because that's what most developers use it seems. It's also quite common for the stable version to contain more bugs that are fixed in a more recent version. 3. Arch testing results in... more testing, so filing of such a bug may actually result in real bugs being filed against the package. I think that's good. Paweł signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: making the stable tree more up-to-date
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 24/11/11 10:17 AM, Paweł Hajdan, Jr. wrote: On 11/23/11 3:27 PM, Torsten Veller wrote: What do you expect to happen with bugs assigned to maintainer-needed? I'm going to CC arches myself after a while, similarly as with bugs with other maintainers who don't respond. ..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) -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (GNU/Linux) iF4EAREIAAYFAk7Ocl8ACgkQAJxUfCtlWe3cnAEAvrKaV3pQUhIzaeXUEJzHpnuA T57cwKlAMTqgrSWDCpoBANMi0uFU+Nr9FvFkj/w8shcsPjmNS5csOPyDNhbbJVTt =cTIU -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: making the stable tree more up-to-date
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 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. Those benefits don't exist for a package that has no stable versions to begin with. Rich
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: making the stable tree more up-to-date
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
[gentoo-dev] Re: making the stable tree more up-to-date
* Paweł Hajdan, Jr. phajdan...@gentoo.org: Please review the list, it's 800+ packages so I thought about asking for feedback before filing stabilization bugs (I plan to do that in stages of course). What do you expect to happen with bugs assigned to maintainer-needed? I don't know if any of the packages is really good to be stabilized. Maybe they are better than the current stable version, maybe not. -- Regards Torsten
