| 1 |
On 21/08/2013 05:24, Tom Wijsman wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Tue, 20 Aug 2013 13:19:10 -0500 |
| 3 |
> William Hubbs <williamh@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
>> All, |
| 6 |
>> |
| 7 |
>> I'm not really sure what the answer to this problem is, so I want to |
| 8 |
>> know what the group thinks about how we can handle it. |
| 9 |
>> |
| 10 |
>> During the last release of OpenRC, I learned that people *do* run |
| 11 |
>> production servers on ~arch. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> While I don't, and asked it just because of the large amount; it |
| 14 |
> appears from some things lately, and not just OpenRC, that there is a |
| 15 |
> certain group that regards ~arch as some kind of new stable. |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> This isn't solely about versions entering ~arch, but also about |
| 18 |
> versions leaving ~arch; as ~ is for testing, people should expect their |
| 19 |
> version to break and they should also expect that they cannot rely on a |
| 20 |
> version remaining in the Portage tree, that's just wrong... |
| 21 |
We would probably benefit from formalising a clearer definition of |
| 22 |
arch/~arch - it seems to mean a lot of different things to different people. |
Archives