| 1 |
On Thu, 2006-07-20 at 21:08 +0200, "Andreas Rückert" wrote: |
| 2 |
> Maybe it's just, that 1.x is too good to update... :-) |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
Well, it is pretty stable. The main thing is it hasn't gotten any |
| 5 |
bug-fixes, either. Of course, you've probably also worked out any bugs |
| 6 |
that you had with it long ago. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
> You know, we (as an example) are in the middle of a commercial venture, and we update, when an update is |
| 9 |
> _required_ , not when it's nice to have... |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
Well, it'll never be "required" since it is open source. However, |
| 12 |
"upstream" (as in the catalyst developers) are moving forward and we |
| 13 |
will stop offering catalyst 1.x within the next month. While you're |
| 14 |
definitely welcome to keep using it, consider this your notice to keep a |
| 15 |
local copy of the ebuilds and the distfiles. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
> I guess you know what they say about updates. Updates means new code with new bugs, which require new |
| 18 |
> bugfixes. 1x is far from perfect, but it works for us... |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
Well, catalyst 2.x has definitely had its share. I mean, would we be on |
| 21 |
release candidate *50* if it hadn't? ;] |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
-- |
| 24 |
Chris Gianelloni |
| 25 |
Release Engineering - Strategic Lead |
| 26 |
x86 Architecture Team |
| 27 |
Games - Developer |
| 28 |
Gentoo Linux |
Archives