| 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 |
Archives