Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Thilo Bangert <bangert@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Policy for late/slow stabilizations
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2010 07:49:49
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] Policy for late/slow stabilizations by Markos Chandras
Markos Chandras <hwoarang@g.o> said:
> On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 08:15:32PM +0200, Auke Booij wrote: > > On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 7:16 PM, Markos Chandras <hwoarang@g.o>
> > > What? I am talking about exotic arches and I didn't say to drop to > > > entire stable tree. Just to shrink it in order to keep it up to > > > date more easily > > > > But my question stands: what really is the advantage of having a > > stable tree, when you could better invest your time in keeping the > > testing tree up to date and working? Most production systems are > > running x86, right? Are stable versions of minority architecture > > installations really that much more stable than testing versions? > > Because a stable tree it is supposed to work. Testing tree on the other > hand is vulnerable to breakages from time to time. We can't always > ensure a working testing tree. We are people not machines. We tend to > brake things and this is way we have the testing branch.
also the stable tree implies security support (GLSAs etc).


File name MIME type
signature.asc application/pgp-signature


Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] Policy for late/slow stabilizations Mart Raudsepp <leio@g.o>