1 |
Rich Freeman posted on Wed, 21 Sep 2011 10:46:38 -0400 as excerpted: |
2 |
|
3 |
> An issue your suggestion doesn't address is when packages don't even |
4 |
> stick around 30 days/etc. |
5 |
> |
6 |
> I know I've seen many packages where there is an ancient stable version |
7 |
> that is never touched, and a much newer ~arch version that gets tweaked |
8 |
> every 3-6 weeks. When it gets tweaked, often the old version is just |
9 |
> removed immediately, or shortly after it is bumped. So, packages often |
10 |
> don't stick around the 30 days it takes to stabilize them. |
11 |
> |
12 |
> Granted, this is a bit anecdotal so I can't speak for how big a problem |
13 |
> this is in reality. However, for any stabilization scheme to work |
14 |
> packages have to be, well, stable. :) |
15 |
|
16 |
Talking about... Just today I was reading that the firefox folks are |
17 |
debating shortening the current 6-week cycle to 5-weeks or less. |
18 |
|
19 |
http://www.h-online.com/open/news/item/Mozilla-developers-consider-even-shorter-release-cycle-1347013.html |
20 |
|
21 |
-- |
22 |
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. |
23 |
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- |
24 |
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman |