| 1 |
On 01/14/2014 07:13 PM, Tom Wijsman wrote: |
| 2 |
>> |
| 3 |
>> For users, both options are worse than the status quo. |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> When you do nothing then things are bound to get worse, under the |
| 6 |
> assumption that manpower doesn't change as well as the assumption that |
| 7 |
> the queue fills faster than stabilization bugs get added to it. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> As a result of this, stable will eventually become broken. It is up to |
| 10 |
> you as well as us whether to consider it to be broken right now. Will |
| 11 |
> it be in a month from now? What about in a year? |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> Will we wait for hell? Or try to prepare and/or fix it now? |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> Maybe there are other options if these can be deemed as being worse. |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
As I mentioned in a reply to William, right now I can decide when stuff |
| 19 |
is broken and keyword the newer versions. The proposal is to force me |
| 20 |
onto the new versions, which is strictly worse from my perspective. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
The whole issue of how much it sucks that stable is lagging is orthogonal. |
Archives