| 1 |
On Sun, 2008-01-06 at 02:06 +0300, Peter Volkov wrote: |
| 2 |
> В Сбт, 05/01/2008 в 18:19 +0100, Luca Barbato пишет: |
| 3 |
> > Anything other suggestions? |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> I think, arch which does not manage to cope with stabilize bugs force |
| 6 |
> users to use unstable branch so it's good both for developers and users |
| 7 |
> to force such arch to concentrate on fixing real bugs and maintain only |
| 8 |
> unstable branch. Decision to drop stable branch for certain arch should |
| 9 |
> be done by council after request and discussion on -dev having |
| 10 |
> arch@g.o in CC. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
Well, if running mips actually causes more breakage than running ~mips |
| 14 |
and if it is unlikely that this will change soon, then the stable |
| 15 |
keyword is not just useless, but misleading. In this case, just dropping |
| 16 |
it seems the most sensible solution. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
Thus it all comes down to a question for mips users/developers: Is mips |
| 19 |
any longer more stable than ~mips? Any opinions? |
Archives