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
1 On Sun, 27 Jun 2010 19:01:13 +0100
2 Markos Chandras <hwoarang@g.o> wrote:
3 > Please explain me why keeping foobar-1.0 ( Released in 10/12/2009 ) is
4 > in favor of a ppc64 stable user when amd64/x86 has foobar-2.1.3 (
5 > Released 60 days ago ) already stabled for them
7 Because it's known to work. That's the point of stable.
9 > What if a foobar-1.0 bug pops up? What kind of support will that user
10 > get from the gentoo or upstream maintainer. The most frequent answer
11 > would be "Please update to 2.1.3. 1.0 is 0ld". Yes, not droppping the
12 > keywords is convenient for users but in this case their stable tree
13 > gets obsolet and unsupported
15 When that happens, *then* stabling foobar can become a priority, and
16 the user in question can help with it. However, given the finite amount
17 of development time available, you need to bear in mind that foobar is
18 nowhere near as special as you'd like to think, that Debian is still
19 running foobar 0.0.1, and that something that is known to work is, for
20 many users, better than something that might work.
22 Which, again, is the point: to what extent do you care about users? If
23 you're prepared to tell users to expect annoying breakages that take a
24 lot of work to fix as things get keyworded every now and again because
25 it makes things marginally easier for developers, then go ahead and
26 unkeyword a package plus lots of deps. If you think users are the
27 distribution's primary asset, however, then it's worth inconveniencing
28 yourselves slightly every now and again to save them a lot of pain.
30 --
31 Ciaran McCreesh


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