1 |
On Thu, 16 Jan 2014 23:44:42 +0100 |
2 |
Tom Wijsman <TomWij@g.o> wrote: |
3 |
|
4 |
> > If I don’t, why do I care if the package is a year old? I lose none |
5 |
> > of my time to use the old version, since it does all I want; |
6 |
> |
7 |
> This is under the assumption that the old version has no further |
8 |
> implications, which is a false assumption; because the older a stable |
9 |
> ebuild get, the higher the chance is that it becomes incompatible with |
10 |
> its libraries and/or causes blockers. Even further, a security bug for |
11 |
> an old version of a library it depends on could cause its removal. |
12 |
|
13 |
Right, of course things can become incompatible—but the distro handles |
14 |
that by either leaving old enough version of e.g. libraries around that |
15 |
the latest stable versions of their reverse dependencies don’t break, |
16 |
or, in exceptional cases (e.g. security), by breaking things |
17 |
intentionally if necessary, thus telling me that there’s a problem. |
18 |
|
19 |
> > I lose a |
20 |
> > nonzero amount of time if I get a version which breaks things (even |
21 |
> > if the only time I lose is the time it takes to downgrade), |
22 |
> |
23 |
> Depends on whether the stable version is as perfect as one thinks it |
24 |
> is; an upgrade can go two ways, it improves or regresses. (Well, three |
25 |
> ways as it can stay the same, but that wouldn't demonstrate the point) |
26 |
|
27 |
Well, yes. I was considering the case of a stable version that does |
28 |
work well. If the stable version has a bug that affects me, I won’t be |
29 |
using it—I’ll pull in an unstable version that fixes the bug, and then |
30 |
get back to stable ASAP after that. |
31 |
|
32 |
> > so it’s in my best interest to use the stable versions of such |
33 |
> > packages, even if they’re a month, a year, or three years old. |
34 |
> |
35 |
> Based on what you know, what you need and that you can resist change; |
36 |
> yes, but this doesn't take into account what you don't know, you don't |
37 |
> know you need and the improvements that change can bring. |
38 |
> |
39 |
> While it doesn't happen often, some people will say "if I knew this |
40 |
> earlier, I would have already upgraded a long while ago"; either |
41 |
> because the new version brings something good, or the old version has |
42 |
> a regression they were not aware of yet or came due to |
43 |
> incompatibility... |
44 |
|
45 |
Sure, it was wrong to say it takes *no* time, but I think less time |
46 |
than sticking to the bleeding edge and having things break from time to |
47 |
time. My experience with stable has been that bugs (at least bugs that |
48 |
I encounter) are rare and, most importantly, bugs are *very* rare in the |
49 |
important packages that are hard to fix (glibc, openrc, gentoo-sources, |
50 |
openssh for servers, etc.). I understand they’re fairly rare in unstable |
51 |
as well, but I would expect a bit more common than in stable. |
52 |
|
53 |
If stable really is falling behind and the backlog is always growing, |
54 |
obviously something has to be done. I just don’t want “something” to |
55 |
mean “don’t have a stable tree”. The stable tree provides me with a |
56 |
benefit. If standards have to slip a bit to maintain timeliness, then |
57 |
I’d prefer a stable tree that’s as stable as practical, accepting |
58 |
reality—perhaps where users are able to submit reports of working |
59 |
packages, or where we let platform-agnostic packages be stabilized |
60 |
after one arch has tested, or various of the other suggestions in this |
61 |
thread. Just not no stable tree at all. |
62 |
-- |
63 |
Christopher Head |