| 1 |
On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 2:13 PM, Thomas Deutschmann <whissi@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 2017-12-14 21:06, R0b0t1 wrote: |
| 3 |
>> In response to the concerns about stability: If I run a lot of unstable |
| 4 |
>> packages, would that preclude my system from being able to help? |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> Yes. Only clean stable systems are eligible for arch testing. That's the |
| 7 |
> whole idea of arch testing... ;) |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> Remember that mixed systems aren't officially supported. |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
It seems like lagging stability is due to a lack of resources. I do |
| 13 |
not know a single person who would be able to run only stable |
| 14 |
packages. They seem to move too slowly, and people switch to unstable |
| 15 |
packages because they contain bugfixes and sometimes new features. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
Could the criteria for stability be reconsidered? Mixed systems might |
| 18 |
not be supported, but save for cases of ABI/API breakage (which can |
| 19 |
happen when transitioning from stable->stable) I do not know why the |
| 20 |
packages would not play well with each other. I am sure there are |
| 21 |
examples where things have blown up, but it seems like expecting that |
| 22 |
to be the case isn't helping. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
Cheers, |
| 25 |
R0b0t1 |
Archives