1 |
On Tue, 14 Jan 2014 20:46:04 -0600 |
2 |
William Hubbs <williamh@g.o> wrote: |
3 |
|
4 |
> s/month/year/ |
5 |
> |
6 |
> Do you feel the same way then? I have heard of stabilizations taking |
7 |
> this long before. I just had to try to pick something reasonable for |
8 |
> the discussion. |
9 |
> |
10 |
> I suppose a compromise would be, instead of removing the old versions, |
11 |
> move them back to ~arch for a month then remove them, but that still |
12 |
> implies action on your part. |
13 |
> |
14 |
> William |
15 |
|
16 |
If I need or want a feature or bugfix which isn’t in the newer version, |
17 |
I always have the choice to use ~. If I don’t, why do I care if the |
18 |
package is a year old? I lose none of my time to use the old version, |
19 |
since it does all I want; I lose a nonzero amount of time if I get a |
20 |
version which breaks things (even if the only time I lose is the time |
21 |
it takes to downgrade), so it’s in my best interest to use the stable |
22 |
versions of such packages, even if they’re a month, a year, or three |
23 |
years old. |
24 |
-- |
25 |
Christopher Head |