| 1 |
On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 3:44 PM, Alec Warner <antarus@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 3:44 AM, Andreas K. Huettel <dilfridge@g.o> |
| 4 |
> wrote: |
| 5 |
>> |
| 6 |
>> Am Dienstag, 25. Juli 2017, 01:22:44 CEST schrieb Peter Stuge: |
| 7 |
>> > |
| 8 |
>> > I hold a perhaps radical view: I would like to simply remove stable. |
| 9 |
>> > |
| 10 |
>> > I continue to feel that maintaining two worlds (stable+unstable) |
| 11 |
>> > carries with it an unneccessary cost. |
| 12 |
>> > |
| 13 |
>> |
| 14 |
>> That's not feasible. It would kill off any semi-professional or |
| 15 |
>> professional |
| 16 |
>> Gentoo use, where a minimum of stability is required. |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> So my argument (for years) has been that this is the right thing all along. |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> If people want a stable Gentoo, fork it and maintain it downstream of the |
| 22 |
> rambunctious rolling distro. |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
What is the difference between forking the repository, and just |
| 26 |
maintaining a keyword inside the same repository, besides the former |
| 27 |
being easier to integrate into QA/etc? |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
People who are interested in working on stable already do so, and |
| 30 |
people who are not for the most part shouldn't be bothered by it. In |
| 31 |
the cases where stable has caused issues with maintainers the council |
| 32 |
has generally dropped arches from stable support so that repoman won't |
| 33 |
complain when packages are removed. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
I won't say that having stable costs us nothing, but I think the cost |
| 36 |
is pretty low. Asking people who want stable to leave isn't going to |
| 37 |
make things any better. |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
-- |
| 40 |
Rich |
Archives