Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Future of gentoo's stable and unstable trees: what are your thoughts?

[Daniel Campbell]

On 07/28/2017 12:44 PM, Alec Warner wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 3:44 AM, Andreas K. Huettel
> <dilfridge@g.o <mailto:dilfridge@g.o>> wrote:
>
>     Am Dienstag, 25. Juli 2017, 01:22:44 CEST schrieb Peter Stuge:
>     >
>     > I hold a perhaps radical view: I would like to simply remove stable.
>     >
>     > I continue to feel that maintaining two worlds (stable+unstable)
>     > carries with it an unneccessary cost.
>     >
>
>     That's not feasible. It would kill off any semi-professional or
>     professional
>     Gentoo use, where a minimum of stability is required.
>
>
> So my argument (for years) has been that this is the right thing all along.
>
> If people want a stable Gentoo, fork it and maintain it downstream of
> the rambunctious rolling distro.
>
>
>
>     (Try keeping ~10 machines on stable running without automation.
>     That's already
>     quite some work. Now try the same with ~arch. Now imagine you're
>     talking about
>     100 or 1000 machines.)
>
>     --
>     Andreas K. Hüttel
>     dilfridge@g.o <mailto:dilfridge@g.o>
>     Gentoo Linux developer (council, perl, libreoffice)
>
>
Why would we replicate that when Arch has been in that cavalier role for
over a decade? Stability is important to all users; some simply have a
lower tolerance for faults. It also gives us a reliable "product" for
others to rely on or even dogfood. I personally run on ~arch, but if I
were to put a friend on Gentoo, I'd want something that will be pretty
easy-going until they learn the skills to take on ~arch, bug reports, etc.

For many -- especially developers -- stable is only a letter away from
"stale", and that's fine. Some run mixed keywords, or go full ~arch. One
of the core values of Gentoo is choice; why take away the stable choice?
-- 
Daniel Campbell - Gentoo Developer
OpenPGP Key: 0x1EA055D6 @ hkp://keys.gnupg.net
fpr: AE03 9064 AE00 053C 270C  1DE4 6F7A 9091 1EA0 55D6