1 |
On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 4:04 PM, R0b0t1 <r030t1@×××××.com> wrote: |
2 |
> On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 2:32 PM, Kristian Fiskerstrand <k_f@g.o> wrote: |
3 |
>> On 12/14/2017 09:21 PM, R0b0t1 wrote: |
4 |
>>> It seems like lagging stability is due to a lack of resources. I do |
5 |
>>> not know a single person who would be able to run only stable |
6 |
>>> packages. |
7 |
>> |
8 |
>> I run stable only on most of my systems. |
9 |
>> |
10 |
> |
11 |
> That is fine, but this thread exists because at least the OP thinks |
12 |
> stabilization is not happening quickly enough, likely because there |
13 |
> are not enough people working on it. Allowing stabilization work from |
14 |
> mixed systems might allow more people to help. |
15 |
> |
16 |
>>> They seem to move too slowly, and people switch to unstable |
17 |
>>> packages because they contain bugfixes and sometimes new features. |
18 |
>> |
19 |
>> slow isn't necessarily a problem, as long as security fixes are handled. |
20 |
>> There is some balancing for large performance gains, but most existing |
21 |
>> systems are scaled based on the current estimates so it would only be |
22 |
>> relevant for the up sizing of the server park for growth needs etc. |
23 |
>> |
24 |
>>> |
25 |
>>> Could the criteria for stability be reconsidered? Mixed systems might |
26 |
>> |
27 |
>> why would it? |
28 |
>> |
29 |
> |
30 |
> Per the question posed by OP the current state of affairs does not |
31 |
> seem to be working, and I have tried to point out one likely cause. If |
32 |
> it's hard to justify the criteria for stability then maybe the |
33 |
> criteria don't make sense. |
34 |
> |
35 |
>>> not be supported, but save for cases of ABI/API breakage (which can |
36 |
>>> happen when transitioning from stable->stable) I do not know why the |
37 |
>>> packages would not play well with each other. I am sure there are |
38 |
>>> examples where things have blown up, but it seems like expecting that |
39 |
>>> to be the case isn't helping. |
40 |
>> |
41 |
>> There are plenty of cases where this fails in miserable ways, so thats |
42 |
>> not a good idea (not to mention the dependency hell from it). That said, |
43 |
>> you can have a stable chroot, or just use a VM for testing etc. |
44 |
>> |
45 |
> |
46 |
> Can you be specific? Human memory is biased towards negative |
47 |
> experiences. If it's hard to actually describe the multitude of issues |
48 |
> that mixed systems cause then it is very likely mixed systems do not |
49 |
> cause many issues. |
50 |
> |
51 |
> Personally, I have very few problems due to my mixed system, and less |
52 |
> than I would have on a stable system. |
53 |
> |
54 |
> Cheers, |
55 |
> R0b0t1 |
56 |
|
57 |
I'm not trying to be confrontational, but asserting an opinion is |
58 |
correct without explaining why that it is so isn't really conducive to |
59 |
arriving at the truth. I understand not wanting to answer if I am |
60 |
completely clueless, and would like to apologize in advance for |
61 |
bothering the developers. |
62 |
|
63 |
I am not very smart, sir. |
64 |
|
65 |
Cheers, |
66 |
R0b0t1 |