1 |
On Tue, 14 Jan 2014 19:47:50 -0500 |
2 |
Michael Orlitzky <mjo@g.o> wrote: |
3 |
|
4 |
> On 01/14/2014 06:11 PM, William Hubbs wrote: |
5 |
> >> |
6 |
> >> For users, both options are worse than the status quo. |
7 |
> > |
8 |
> > The first option would start reverting things back to ~ and users |
9 |
> > would have to unmask them. |
10 |
> > |
11 |
> > The second option would introduce new things to stable which may |
12 |
> > not be stable due to not being tested on the arch. |
13 |
> > |
14 |
> > The second option is worse than the first imo, that's why I didn't |
15 |
> > propose it first. |
16 |
> > |
17 |
> > The status quo is not good, because we are forced to keep old, and |
18 |
> > potentially buggy, versions of software around longer than |
19 |
> > necessary. |
20 |
> |
21 |
> So you're going to force stable users onto the unstable, untested |
22 |
> version, which they could have done anyway if they wanted to. Strictly |
23 |
> worse than the status quo (where it's optional). |
24 |
|
25 |
This is under the assumption that the user knows of the state of the |
26 |
stabilization worsening; if the user is unaware of that change, the |
27 |
"could have done anyway" might be less common and first something bad |
28 |
would need to happen before they realize the worsened stabilization. |
29 |
|
30 |
-- |
31 |
With kind regards, |
32 |
|
33 |
Tom Wijsman (TomWij) |
34 |
Gentoo Developer |
35 |
|
36 |
E-mail address : TomWij@g.o |
37 |
GPG Public Key : 6D34E57D |
38 |
GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2 ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D |