Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Policy for late/slow stabilizations
Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2010 18:20:00
Message-Id: 20100627191312.7ba862ef@snowcone
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] Policy for late/slow stabilizations by Markos Chandras
On Sun, 27 Jun 2010 19:01:13 +0100
Markos Chandras <hwoarang@g.o> wrote:
> Please explain me why keeping foobar-1.0 ( Released in 10/12/2009 ) is > in favor of a ppc64 stable user when amd64/x86 has foobar-2.1.3 ( > Released 60 days ago ) already stabled for them
Because it's known to work. That's the point of stable.
> What if a foobar-1.0 bug pops up? What kind of support will that user > get from the gentoo or upstream maintainer. The most frequent answer > would be "Please update to 2.1.3. 1.0 is 0ld". Yes, not droppping the > keywords is convenient for users but in this case their stable tree > gets obsolet and unsupported
When that happens, *then* stabling foobar can become a priority, and the user in question can help with it. However, given the finite amount of development time available, you need to bear in mind that foobar is nowhere near as special as you'd like to think, that Debian is still running foobar 0.0.1, and that something that is known to work is, for many users, better than something that might work. Which, again, is the point: to what extent do you care about users? If you're prepared to tell users to expect annoying breakages that take a lot of work to fix as things get keyworded every now and again because it makes things marginally easier for developers, then go ahead and unkeyword a package plus lots of deps. If you think users are the distribution's primary asset, however, then it's worth inconveniencing yourselves slightly every now and again to save them a lot of pain. -- Ciaran McCreesh


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