> Date: Mon, 07 Jun 2010 08:19:04 +0200
> Subject: Re: [aur-general] Please delete my package "gobby-dev"
> From: Angel Velásquez <email@example.com>
> To: "Discussion about the Arch User Repository (AUR)"
> On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 6:33 AM, Sven-Hendrik Haase <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> > On 04.06.2010 00:44, Angel Velásquez wrote:
> >> On Thu, Jun 3, 2010 at 5:04 PM, Evangelos Foutras
> <email@example.com> wrote: >>
> >>> On 03/06/10 21:19, Sven-Hendrik Haase wrote:
> >>>> Hey, please delete my package "gobby-dev"
> >>>> (http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=27325) in AUR because
> somebody >>>> finally packaged gobby in the dev version for community
> and now my >>>> package is redundant.
> >> As a past maintainer of gobby all I can say is that 0.4.93 is
> UNSTABLE >> .. the last stable version is 0.4.12 which IMO is where
> our gobby >> binary package should be ..
> >> I will send a mail to sergej to see his thoughts.
> > 0.4.93 is pretty good for me. I think 0.4.12 is almost unusable (no
> > undo/redo). I like the decision of making -dev the standard
> > version.
> Hmm 0.4.12 as I said is the *stable* version, 0.4.93 is the
> _experimental_ one, maybe 0.4.12 version lack of features that gobby
> 0.5.0 will have (0.4.9X branch is suposed to be the next 0.5.0 release
> IIRC when it will be finished, once again is a non-stable software).
> I don't like the idea of packaging experimental stuff, 0.4.93 is a
> snapshot of -not yet finished- software, but it's just my opinion.
> Thoughts of other Devs/TU/Users are apreciated
> Angel Velásquez
> angvp @ irc.freenode.net
> Arch Linux Trusted User
> Linux Counter: #359909
generally spoken you are right, but we should allow exceptions from that
We had an emacs-cvs package for years because that was the one people
really used and despite being build from CVS it was damned stable.
How long does "release" 0.4.93 exist? If was not changed for long, we
can consider it
stable. The maintainer should be able to decide this.