Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Michael Orlitzky <mjo@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: revisiting our stabilization policy
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2014 00:48:02
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: revisiting our stabilization policy by William Hubbs
1 On 01/14/2014 06:11 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
2 >>
3 >> For users, both options are worse than the status quo.
4 >
5 > The first option would start reverting things back to ~ and users would
6 > have to unmask them.
7 >
8 > The second option would introduce new things to stable which may not be
9 > stable due to not being tested on the arch.
10 >
11 > The second option is worse than the first imo, that's why I didn't
12 > propose it first.
13 >
14 > The status quo is not good, because we are forced to keep old, and
15 > potentially buggy, versions of software around longer than necessary.
17 So you're going to force stable users onto the unstable, untested
18 version, which they could have done anyway if they wanted to. Strictly
19 worse than the status quo (where it's optional).


Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: revisiting our stabilization policy Tom Wijsman <TomWij@g.o>