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 packag
El jue, 24-11-2011 a las 12:12 -0500, Rich Freeman escribió:
> On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 11:35 AM, Ian Stakenvicius 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 sta
On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 11:35 AM, Ian Stakenvicius 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-neede
-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
> oth
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.
>
* "Paweł Hajdan, Jr." :
> 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 re
