| 1 |
On 28 July 2017 8:44:20 PM AEST, "Andreas K. Huettel" <dilfridge@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
>Am Dienstag, 25. Juli 2017, 01:22:44 CEST schrieb Peter Stuge: |
| 3 |
>> |
| 4 |
>> I hold a perhaps radical view: I would like to simply remove stable. |
| 5 |
>> |
| 6 |
>> I continue to feel that maintaining two worlds (stable+unstable) |
| 7 |
>> carries with it an unneccessary cost. |
| 8 |
>> |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
>That's not feasible. It would kill off any semi-professional or |
| 11 |
>professional |
| 12 |
>Gentoo use, where a minimum of stability is required. |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
>(Try keeping ~10 machines on stable running without automation. That's |
| 15 |
>already |
| 16 |
>quite some work. Now try the same with ~arch. Now imagine you're |
| 17 |
>talking about |
| 18 |
>100 or 1000 machines.) |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
And further, try proposing that to management - that you'll be managing hosts on a platform that has no "stable" to speak of. |
| 21 |
-- |
| 22 |
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. |
Archives