| 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. |
| 16 |
|
| 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). |
Archives