On Tue, 2007-06-19 at 05:32 +0300, Mart Raudsepp wrote:
> Hey,
>
> On E, 2007-06-18 at 11:34 -0700, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> > Also, remember that stabilization is *supposed* to be about the
> > stabilization of the *ebuild* and not the *package* itself.
>
> This sentence made me personally sta
On Tuesday 19 June 2007 06:40, Luis Francisco Araujo wrote:
> I use to ask for stabilization of the new version of a package
> immediately if it is supposed to fix an *important* security problem in
> the package, so that way we spread as soon as possible the new fix to
> our users.
>
> Not sure if
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Mart Raudsepp wrote:
> Hey,
>
> On E, 2007-06-18 at 11:34 -0700, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
>> Also, remember that stabilization is *supposed* to be about the
>> stabilization of the *ebuild* and not the *package* itself.
>
> This sentence made me pers
Hey,
On E, 2007-06-18 at 11:34 -0700, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> Also, remember that stabilization is *supposed* to be about the
> stabilization of the *ebuild* and not the *package* itself.
This sentence made me personally start looking at the policy in a
different way as far as stabilization an
