| 1 |
On Tue, 14 Jan 2014 20:11:24 -0500 |
| 2 |
Michael Orlitzky <mjo@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On 01/14/2014 08:08 PM, Tom Wijsman wrote: |
| 5 |
> > |
| 6 |
> > This is under the assumption that the user knows of the state of the |
| 7 |
> > stabilization worsening; if the user is unaware of that change, the |
| 8 |
> > "could have done anyway" might be less common and first something |
| 9 |
> > bad would need to happen before they realize the worsened |
| 10 |
> > stabilization. |
| 11 |
> > |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> If I don't realize it, it ain't broke. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
So, you're going to wait for corruption, a security breach or something |
| 16 |
along those lines to happen first? |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
Corruption is what stabilization of consistent dependencies can |
| 19 |
prevent, rather than relying on a >=... dependency too much. Security |
| 20 |
is what prevents security bugs from remaining present. And so on... |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
If you don't realize it, it ain't fixed. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
-- |
| 25 |
With kind regards, |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
Tom Wijsman (TomWij) |
| 28 |
Gentoo Developer |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
E-mail address : TomWij@g.o |
| 31 |
GPG Public Key : 6D34E57D |
| 32 |
GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2 ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D |
Archives