-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
and
-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, and both
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 because some
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 bar
-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
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.
The month is not set
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
