| 1 |
On Mon, Jan 20, 2014, Tom Wijsman wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Sun, 19 Jan 2014, Christopher Head wrote: |
| 3 |
> > If stable really is falling behind and the backlog is always growing, |
| 4 |
> > obviously something has to be done. I just don't want "something" to |
| 5 |
> > mean "don't have a stable tree". The stable tree provides me with a |
| 6 |
> > benefit. If standards have to slip a bit to maintain timeliness, then |
| 7 |
> > I'd prefer a stable tree that's as stable as practical, accepting |
| 8 |
> > reality-- perhaps where users are able to submit reports of working |
| 9 |
> > packages, or where we let platform-agnostic packages be stabilized |
| 10 |
> > after one arch has tested, or various of the other suggestions in this |
| 11 |
> > thread. Just not no stable tree at all. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> +1 as long as we can find effort and ways to keep it around. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
What? Without a stable tree, Gentoo is useless afaic. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
I don't think that's what was being proposed, though. The question was |
| 18 |
really the old complaint about slow architectures; the "-* arch" |
| 19 |
solution sounds like the most reasonable definition of "dropping" |
| 20 |
keywords, in the absence of AT communication otherwise. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
-- |
| 23 |
#friendly-coders -- We're friendly, but we're not /that/ friendly ;-) |
Archives