| 1 |
On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 7:22 PM, Peter Stuge <peter@×××××.se> wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> I hold a perhaps radical view: I would like to simply remove stable. |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> I continue to feel that maintaining two worlds (stable+unstable) |
| 6 |
> carries with it an unneccessary cost. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
The question is whether devs would start being more conservative with |
| 10 |
~arch if it essentially turned into the new stable? |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
If ~arch doesn't break then we're probably delaying updates too much. |
| 13 |
If it does start breaking and we don't have any alternative, we'll |
| 14 |
probably start losing users who just can't deal with their systems |
| 15 |
breaking. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
Personally I'd rather see stable stick around. If it isn't updated |
| 18 |
often that isn't a big deal (to me at least). |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
-- |
| 21 |
Rich |
Archives