| 1 |
On Thu, Feb 06, 2014 at 01:48:38AM +0100, Tom Wijsman wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Wed, 05 Feb 2014 17:05:08 -0500 |
| 3 |
> "Rick \"Zero_Chaos\" Farina" <zerochaos@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> > > |
| 6 |
> > > Yes, making the newest versions never available because the old |
| 7 |
> > > versions sink all your time really stops progress to a dead halt. |
| 8 |
> > > |
| 9 |
> > |
| 10 |
> > Your logic isn't flawed here, it's entirely missing. If version Y is |
| 11 |
> > stable on all arches but one, and that version is still using version |
| 12 |
> > X that doesn't affect any of the other arches at all. |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> Can this be proven? Why are maintainers like WilliamH upset about this? |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> Reference: http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/90063 |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
I was mostly upset because of the appearance of inaction by the arch |
| 19 |
teams. In my specific case, it wasn't the arm guys I was talking about [1]. |
| 20 |
arm was stable within the first month of adding to the bug. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
I was very concerned because of how long this bug sat in the stable |
| 23 |
queue with no action being taken, especially since other important |
| 24 |
packages depended on it. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
William |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
[1] https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.dgi?id=487332 |
Archives