Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Markos Chandras <hwoarang@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Policy for late/slow stabilizations
Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2010 18:01:28
Message-Id: 20100627180113.GA12949@Blade
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] Policy for late/slow stabilizations by Ciaran McCreesh
On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 06:43:30PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > Which is the decision to make: make things very difficult for minority > arch users, who get screwed over royally every time keywords are > dropped, or make things slightly more inconvenient for developers, who > have to keep some things around for longer. It's all down to whether > you think happy users are more important than happy developers. > > -- > Ciaran McCreesh
Please explain me why keeping foobar-1.0 ( Released in 10/12/2009 ) is in favor of a ppc64 stable user when amd64/x86 has foobar-2.1.3 ( Released 60 days ago ) already stabled for them What if a foobar-1.0 bug pops up? What kind of support will that user get from the gentoo or upstream maintainer. The most frequent answer would be "Please update to 2.1.3. 1.0 is 0ld". Yes, not droppping the keywords is convenient for users but in this case their stable tree gets obsolet and unsupported -- Markos Chandras (hwoarang) Gentoo Linux Developer Web: http://hwoarang.silverarrow.org

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] Policy for late/slow stabilizations Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com>