| 1 |
On Tue, 14 Jan 2014 17:43:57 -0500 |
| 2 |
Michael Orlitzky <mjo@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> It's attempting to fix a headache with a bullet. The arch teams are |
| 5 |
> lagging behind, you're annoyed, I get it. Give 'em hell. But don't |
| 6 |
> break stable to make a point. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> For users, both options are worse than the status quo. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
When you do nothing then things are bound to get worse, under the |
| 11 |
assumption that manpower doesn't change as well as the assumption that |
| 12 |
the queue fills faster than stabilization bugs get added to it. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
As a result of this, stable will eventually become broken. It is up to |
| 15 |
you as well as us whether to consider it to be broken right now. Will |
| 16 |
it be in a month from now? What about in a year? |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
Will we wait for hell? Or try to prepare and/or fix it now? |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
Maybe there are other options if these can be deemed as being worse. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
-- |
| 23 |
With kind regards, |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
Tom Wijsman (TomWij) |
| 26 |
Gentoo Developer |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
E-mail address : TomWij@g.o |
| 29 |
GPG Public Key : 6D34E57D |
| 30 |
GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2 ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D |
Archives