| 1 |
On Sun, 29 Jan 2012 23:17:48 -0600 |
| 2 |
Donnie Berkholz <dberkholz@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On 21:33 Sat 28 Jan , Ryan Hill wrote: |
| 5 |
> > I've run into this three times today, so I'm a little grumpy. When |
| 6 |
> > you bump to a new ~arch version, please consider keeping at least |
| 7 |
> > one previous ~arch version around, so if people run into major |
| 8 |
> > issues they can at lease try the previously installed version to |
| 9 |
> > determine if it's your package at fault. Recent version bumps to |
| 10 |
> > two libraries have completely trashed a package I maintain, and the |
| 11 |
> > only option for my users is downgrading them to stable, which |
| 12 |
> > requires downgrading several other libraries. In both cases, the |
| 13 |
> > previous ~arch version, which worked fine, was removed. |
| 14 |
> > |
| 15 |
> > Personally I always try to keep two versions in ~arch and one |
| 16 |
> > stable, excepting security or other major bugs that render an older |
| 17 |
> > version useless. |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> Agreed with a slight modification — once you've kept the old |
| 20 |
> {stable,~arch} version around for a reasonable amount of time (say 30 |
| 21 |
> days), you should be safe pulling it. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
As a user, I'd very much like that to be policy. It would remove the |
| 24 |
main reason I stay away from ~ versions, so I'd use more of them and |
| 25 |
file more (hopefully useful) bug reports. |
Archives