Samuli Suominen wrote:
Wed, 16 Apr 2008 12:09:24 -0700
Chris Gianelloni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> kirjoitti:
On Wed, 2008-04-16 at 11:49 +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
thirty days is the norm for the minimal period between an ebuilds
last
It is the norm. It is not a requirement. In fact, it is
specifically a "guideline" rather than a hard rule. It is up to the
maintainer's discretion when to ask for stabilization, just like it
is up to the arch team's discretion when to actually *do* the
stabilization. If you don't think that it's ready on your arch, say
so, but be prepared to defend why you think so when the package
maintainer, who should be much more familiar with the package, thinks
that it is ready.
Okay. So we can just agree it's better if the maintainer tells his
reasons when opening the bug, to spare the later clarifications?
On the other hand, maybe these early stabilisation bug reports
are a sign of the times and we need to shorten the normal thirty
day period, become even more of a cutting edge distro - or at
least discuss the options.
I'd say leave the current norm and smack the misbehaving
maintainers :)
Who says that they're misbehaving? Again, the maintainers probably
know their packages better than anyone else, so why are we not
trusting their judgement again?
Thanks for this, I was going to reply in similar fashion but didn't
want to (accidentally) start flaming..
Sorry I used a harsh word myself, didn't want to flame neither.
Caster
--
[email protected] mailing list
