| 1 |
On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 05:43:57PM -0500, Michael Orlitzky wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 01/14/2014 05:33 PM, William Hubbs wrote: |
| 3 |
> > On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 04:57:30PM -0500, Michael Orlitzky wrote: |
| 4 |
> >> On 01/14/2014 04:37 PM, William Hubbs wrote: |
| 5 |
> >>> |
| 6 |
> >>> 2. I would like to see the policy below applied to all arch's [2]. |
| 7 |
> >> |
| 8 |
> >> [ ] Yup |
| 9 |
> >> [X] Nope |
| 10 |
> > |
| 11 |
> > The reverse of this would be to let maintainers stabilize on all arch's |
| 12 |
> > after 90 days, then they are allowed to remove all but the latest stable |
| 13 |
> > version. This isn't good though because maintainers would be stabilizing |
| 14 |
> > packages on arch's where they can't test. |
| 15 |
> > |
| 16 |
> > The stable tree is significantly behind because the arch teams are so |
| 17 |
> > short staffed, and this prooposal is an attempt to fix that. |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> It's attempting to fix a headache with a bullet. The arch teams are |
| 20 |
> lagging behind, you're annoyed, I get it. Give 'em hell. But don't break |
| 21 |
> stable to make a point. |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> For users, both options are worse than the status quo. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
The first option would start reverting things back to ~ and users would |
| 26 |
have to unmask them. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
The second option would introduce new things to stable which may not be |
| 29 |
stable due to not being tested on the arch. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
The second option is worse than the first imo, that's why I didn't |
| 32 |
propose it first. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
The status quo is not good, because we are forced to keep old, and |
| 35 |
potentially buggy, versions of software around longer than necessary. |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
William |
Archives