On Wed, 05 Feb 2014 15:41:58 +0400 Sergey Popov <pinkb...@gentoo.org> wrote:
> Maybe we should change our sentence about dropping last stable
> keywords for slow arches ONLY if version, still marked stable for
> them is seriously broken?
What does "seriously broken" mean? Maintainers will see that different;
besides that, note that a part of that breakage is invisible, another
part is left unfixed in a growing pile of bug fixes to be backported.
Why do we drop other reasons (like maintenance costs, ebuild age, ...)?
Let me quote some extracts from WilliamH's original mail ([...] snips):
"It is becoming more and more obvious that we do not have enough
manpower [...], to keep up with stabilization requests."
"[...] this was affecting important packages and I felt that the
arch teams should step up [...]. The arch team member disagreed
unless the issue is a security bug."
"Keeping old software in the stable tree, I think we can agree,
isn't good because newer software, besides having new features,
will have bug fixes."
Besides those already mentioned, there's one that didn't came up later:
arch team members disagreeing to do important packages is a big concern.
> And removing old version ONLY on security issues
We already do this by masking the version, then later removing it; given
that stabilization is in a very slow state. Or at least, I hope we do...
> or maintainer discretion.
The policy reads "The maintainer may ...".
--
With kind regards,
Tom Wijsman (TomWij)
Gentoo Developer
E-mail address : tom...@gentoo.org
GPG Public Key : 6D34E57D
GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2 ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
