Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Christopher Head <chead@×××××.ca>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: revisiting our stabilization policy
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2014 07:28:18
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: revisiting our stabilization policy by William Hubbs
1 On Tue, 14 Jan 2014 20:46:04 -0600
2 William Hubbs <williamh@g.o> wrote:
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
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


File name MIME type
signature.asc application/pgp-signature


Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: revisiting our stabilization policy Tom Wijsman <TomWij@g.o>