Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Thilo Bangert <bangert@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Policy for late/slow stabilizations
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2010 07:49:49
Message-Id: 201006280949.32308.bangert@gentoo.org
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] Policy for late/slow stabilizations by Markos Chandras
1 Markos Chandras <hwoarang@g.o> said:
2 > On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 08:15:32PM +0200, Auke Booij wrote:
3 > > On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 7:16 PM, Markos Chandras <hwoarang@g.o>
4 wrote:
5 > > > What? I am talking about exotic arches and I didn't say to drop to
6 > > > entire stable tree. Just to shrink it in order to keep it up to
7 > > > date more easily
8 > >
9 > > But my question stands: what really is the advantage of having a
10 > > stable tree, when you could better invest your time in keeping the
11 > > testing tree up to date and working? Most production systems are
12 > > running x86, right? Are stable versions of minority architecture
13 > > installations really that much more stable than testing versions?
14 >
15 > Because a stable tree it is supposed to work. Testing tree on the other
16 > hand is vulnerable to breakages from time to time. We can't always
17 > ensure a working testing tree. We are people not machines. We tend to
18 > brake things and this is way we have the testing branch.
19
20 also the stable tree implies security support (GLSAs etc).

Attachments

File name MIME type
signature.asc application/pgp-signature

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] Policy for late/slow stabilizations Mart Raudsepp <leio@g.o>