On Fri, 2020-04-10 at 13:42 +0300, Andreas K. Hüttel wrote:
> > > "Developers should file stabilization requests, however, pending
> > > stabilization on these arches alone cannot block any further steps (as,
> > > e.g., cleanup of old versions)."
> >
> > Isn't that implied by exp status, i.e. sep
> > "Developers should file stabilization requests, however, pending
> > stabilization on these arches alone cannot block any further steps (as,
> > e.g., cleanup of old versions)."
>
> Isn't that implied by exp status, i.e. separate from this?
Hmm... do all "degraded" profiles have to be "exp"?
On Fri, 2020-04-10 at 13:23 +0300, Andreas K. Hüttel wrote:
> Am Freitag, 10. April 2020, 09:58:44 EEST schrieb Michał Górny:
>
> > Developers are not expected to file
> > stabilization +requests.
>
> This kinda changed in usage in the meantime (for, say, stuff like sparc and
> s390). The reque
Am Freitag, 10. April 2020, 09:58:44 EEST schrieb Michał Górny:
> Developers are not expected to file
> stabilization +requests.
This kinda changed in usage in the meantime (for, say, stuff like sparc and
s390). The request was to CC them in the stabilization bugs if relevant.
How about
"Devel
Provide a combined description for every status that explains what it
means, how it's used by linting tools and how it affects stabilization
requests.
Signed-off-by: Michał Górny
---
glep-0072.rst | 46 +++---
1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 27 deletions
