| 1 |
On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 10:33 PM, Ryan Hill <dirtyepic@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> When you bump |
| 3 |
> to a new ~arch version, please consider keeping at least one previous ~arch |
| 4 |
> version around, so if people run into major issues they can at lease try the |
| 5 |
> previously installed version to determine if it's your package at fault. |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
I mostly run stable and when I have to pull in the odd ~arch package |
| 8 |
it seems like for some of them I'm re-keywording them every third day. |
| 9 |
The stable version doesn't change in 9 months, and the unstable one |
| 10 |
changes 47 times, with old versions being dropped instantly so I have |
| 11 |
no choice but to move along or risk having a security bug that won't |
| 12 |
get GLSA'ed. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
Also, if we don't keep unstable versions around there isn't any way to |
| 15 |
get them stabilized, making stable more stale. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
If a particular unstable version is particularly buggy or otherwise |
| 18 |
not something upstream supports then it makes sense to move on. |
| 19 |
However, everything has some level of bugs (if you look hard enough) |
| 20 |
and if they're pretty minor then we should be asking ourselves if it |
| 21 |
is better or worse than the current stable, and if not then it should |
| 22 |
be left around if possible as a stable candidate. Obviously use |
| 23 |
common sense. If we can afford our users the luxury of upgrading at |
| 24 |
their leisure we should do so. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Rich |
Archives