On Fri, 05 Jan 2007 07:33:31 -0700 Steve Dibb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Andrey Gerasimenko wrote: > > On Fri, 05 Jan 2007 11:49:30 +0300, Robert Cernansky > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> On Thu, 04 Jan 2007 13:49:48 -0700 Steve Dibb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>> Most stuff doesnt get marked stable mostly because there aren't > >>> any stable requests. > >> > >> Stabilisation bug it not a requirement. > > Actually, everything I said in that last email was a little off. > Stabilization bugs are required because ultimately it is the > architecture team that is going to mark it stable, not the > developer. There are some cases where things can go directly stable > (such as security vulnerabilities), but those are the exception and > not the rule. > > So if you want something stable, do all the checks, file a bug, and > copy all the arches that it applies to. You can see which ones use > it on http://packages.gentoo.org/ I perfectly agree with your previous e-mail where you sayng that "it's a notice telling the developers that hey, someone wants it marked stable." And I agree that stabilisation bugs are helping developers and everybody should write it when appropriate. But it should not be a requirement. In documentation [1] it is not mentioned a stabilisation bug. Is there any other documentation specific for architecture team that have higher priorty? The exception because of security bug, that you mentioned, allows to ingnore 30 days + no bugs rule, it has nothing to do with stabilisation bugs. 1. http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/devrel/handbook/handbook.xml?part=3&chap=1#doc_chap4 Robert -- Robert Cernansky E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
