El jue, 24-11-2011 a las 12:12 -0500, Rich Freeman escribió:
> On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 11:35 AM, Ian Stakenvicius <axs@g.o> wrote:
> > .should ~arch packages with no maintainer really be moved to stable?*
> >
> > (* assuming no other outside forces, like it's a dep of something else
> > that needs to go stable)
> 
> I support stabilizing bug-free newer versions of maintainer-needed
> packages that already have stable versions.  I'm not sure I'd extend
> that to stabilizing packages that have no stable versions already.
> 

I agree with stabling newer version but NOT to stable maintainer-needed
packages that has no stable version currently :)

> I see getting stable users on the ~arch version as a win-win since it
> means less maintenance of older version (without a maintainer), and
> will likely give the stable user a more stable experience in reality
> than what they already have.
> 

I have also seen some maintainer-needed packages need to get a newer
version stable to fix some old opened bugs 

> Those benefits don't exist for a package that has no stable versions
> to begin with.
> 
> Rich
> 
>