| Summary: | app-misc/screen-4.6.0 version bump | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | Gentoo Linux | Reporter: | Andrew Savchenko <bircoph> |
| Component: | Current packages | Assignee: | Sven Wegener <swegener> |
| Status: | RESOLVED FIXED | ||
| Severity: | enhancement | CC: | hydrapolic, shell-tools |
| Priority: | Normal | ||
| Version: | unspecified | ||
| Hardware: | All | ||
| OS: | Linux | ||
| URL: | https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/screen.git/log/?h=v.4.6.0 | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Package list: | Runtime testing required: | --- | |
|
Description
Andrew Savchenko
2017-06-28 19:22:13 UTC
commit 5bf92546915bab53a18c9d795d4f5cd1af42069e (HEAD -> master, origin/master, origin/HEAD) Author: Lars Wendler <polynomial-c@gentoo.org> Date: Thu Jun 29 00:05:57 2017 app-misc/screen: Bump to version 4.6.0 (bug #622950). Package-Manager: Portage-2.3.6, Repoman-2.3.2 It's nice to have the latest, but we are trying to communicate this to our users: https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Zero-day_bump_requests And we are not giving them a good example ;) > https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Zero-day_bump_requests Is this a Council approved policy? That's the first time I hear of it as of globally used policy. The Bugzilla Guide[1] doesn't even have a link to it. Really, we can't expect our users to read random wiki pages before posting a bug. Frankly, I see nothing wrong in reporting version bumps early. A very good example is screen-4.6.1 which fixes very serious regression in 4.6.0 making screen unusable within su/sudo sessions. But due to this questionable policy I have to wait for another day before reporting this update. [1] https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Bugzilla/Guide I don't know if this approved by the council, but this was part of the bugzilla guide, seems it was removed just recently: https://wiki.gentoo.org/index.php?title=Bugzilla/Guide&diff=642706&oldid=642700 |